911 motive

Alright, every crime ever investigated, the first thing the detectives ever look at before naming suspects is MOTIVE. With that in mind lets look at motives, since the CTers seem more like detectives than the 911 commission, as we have an abundane of unanswered questions.

Osama Bin, named number one suspect....motive: He hates our freedoms....but desires the consequences of armed US invasion in the middle east. Surely someone that could plan an attack involving evading NORAD, and no fly zones, would have thought of the consequences of their actions, including retaliation by the strongest military powerhouse in the world. Not only that, if indeed he was a fanatic, he would be bragging, for the support of his cause, that he indeed struck America with the utmost precision. He denied this in every source i could uncover except the US version i.e. the videotape.

US gov. Motive, a preplanned war into two countries, Unocal, Oil, Money, Big Business, Stocks, Israel, US presence in M.E., Insurance Fraud...

Any one else have anything to either sides, id appreciate it.

From my perspective, if JIHAD is the only motive, the rule of Muslims in the modern world, a Hit and Run doesnt seem to have a good effect on Boosting their cause. If they indeed did declare war on Capitalism, wouldnt they be attacking on a regular basis, and not just once every few years?

Why is it that you people never research before you post something..

Not even looking at what u stated, here are a few things..

It would cost NYC money.. Alot of money to demolish the WTC and rebuild it.

They needed a fall guy, Bin Laden was chosen, easy cop out.. supposidly he did WTC 93, Kenya, and Cole and a few other things before this, so guess why he was picked.

There needed a reason to go into Iraq, Afghanistan.

They needed tougher laws and such. PA I and PA II, Detainee bill and torture bill..

Why don't you give those terms a Google search and see what you come up with.



[edit on 10/31/2006 by ThichHeaded]

$$$$$ *snip*

"The bottom line is the Government motive for attacking the WTC is money." (Paraphrase added by Zedd)

Had to be more than 1 line

mikell


Mod Note: Its really not that hard to add a complete thought with a short sentence (as I did above for you). The whole idea of not putting a single line is to have a bit more to your discussion then "me too" or in this case "money."

Even very short, if it fits the discussion...it will be okay.




[edit on 31-10-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
With that in mind lets look at motives, since the CTers seem more like detectives than the 911 commission, as we have an abundane of unanswered questions.

CTers...

Is that Conspiracy Theoristers? Conspiracy Theoriers?

That abbreviation is just silly, but then GBers (that's Grammatical Butcheristerers) never plan very well. I would say just drop it as a label. I don't know who originally thought of CTer, but they definately didn't plan more better.

Ok I will use your thing here. sorry for double post, I couldn't resisit.

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Alright, every crime ever investigated, the first thing the detectives ever look at before naming suspects is MOTIVE. With that in mind lets look at motives, since the CTers seem more like detectives than the 911 commission, as we have an abundance of unanswered questions.

Well sucks to be someone don't it? and its not us CT people.. BTW, What tf is CT'er?

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Osama Bin, named number one suspect....motive: He hates our freedoms....but desires the consequences of armed US invasion in the middle east.

This isn't entirely true. Bin Laden hates our government, He don't hate the people. He don't like how we... The US is doing bad things to their people, sanctions and such. He has stated this numerous times in the past.. I can recall 98 and 01 he stated the same exact thing almost before and after 9/11. Therefor I don't believe Bin Laden Had much if anything to do with WTC 01.

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Surely someone that could plan an attack involving evading NORAD, and no fly zones, would have thought of the consequences of their actions, including retaliation by the strongest military powerhouse in the world.

Do you know how cheezy this sounds??????

Really, come on man.. They were doing drills on 9/11 same time things were going on in NYC and Washington. Ok sure I would go with that.. But you know the same thing happened on 7/7 in London. They were running around doing drills the same time these buses and things were blowing up.. Think about it for a minute?

Look for a guy named BillyBob here on ATS, look at his sig You get the idea of what i am talking about.. It has a probability of that happening 2 times in 10 yrs I think.

Not only that, Guess who was in both places when these attacks happened. Ya Rudy Giuliani. Now add that little math problem. Becomes a hell of alot more compounded don't it?

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Not only that, if indeed he was a fanatic, he would be bragging, for the support of his cause, that he indeed struck America with the utmost precision. He denied this in every source i could uncover except the US version i.e. the videotape.

No comment, don't feel like getting into this yet.

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
US gov. Motive, a preplanned war into two countries, Unocal, Oil, Money, Big Business, Stocks, Israel, US presence in M.E., Insurance Fraud...

Any one else have anything to either sides, id appreciate it.

From my perspective, if JIHAD is the only motive, the rule of Muslims in the modern world, a Hit and Run doesn't seem to have a good effect on Boosting their cause. If they indeed did declare war on Capitalism, wouldn't they be attacking on a regular basis, and not just once every few years?

Read my 1st post.

[edit on 10/31/2006 by ThichHeaded]

One thing is often forgotten about the Twin Towers, they were severely deteriorating due to galvanic action ( aluminium bolted to steel ) and would have had to been rebuilt anyway. Go look for the official report floating around the web on this subject. It would be easier to blow them up, blame it on some loon and get the public to scream for what the Govt. already had planned---> Problem-Reaction-Solution. This isn't to take away the fact that Islamist's and their ideology is dangerous to the Western Civilization and its continued dominance, which I have no doubt numerous thinktanks from the last 30 years have highlighted. To this effect the Govt. of the day obviously doesnt like the idea of just telling the truth as this removes numerous possibilities like maintaining the Oil supply from non freindly Arab countries and targetting anyone they please with a trigger word ( terrorist ) so that instantly billions of mindless sheep get on their side and demand that the enemy be engaged.

First of all, kudos to Pedro for starting this thread. I've looked at all the engineering facts and I'm fascinated by the implications...I just don't feel personally satisfied with the supposed motives of the individuals at the helm.

Here's an honest question, and all you hard core 9/11ers (is that better than CTers or worse?) please temper your desire to call me an ignorant piece of crap who hasn't done any research...

How much would it have costed to legitimately demolish the twin towers?
You know, if they had notified NYC, said that they were going to take a loss on these old buildings, cleared folks out...and let 'er rip.
Has anyone come across that number?

I'm just curious...because that's the number that a bunch of BILLIONAIRES would have placed on the pricetag for thousands of innocent lives.
That's what I'm having a hard time with.

We're talking about individuals pulling off this damning operation for the purpose of increasing their money and power, when the main requirements to successfully complete such an operation is unlimited money and power.

I'm not saying I know what exactly happened...but it doesn't feel right to me...

Congratulations Thich and others.

I believe i agree with were you stand, the thread however is about motive.

Noone yet has added Motives to either side, already there are arguments about the semantics of 911.

Personally I believe it was an inside job because, the US has more motive than O.B.L.

Zedd, Thanks for the wisdom, I guess i became a sheep reiterating phrases id seen so many times before withouth correctly anlyzing it. CTers...LOL, makes me laugh now.

So, regarding the first reply on the WTC costing us money to rebuild. It did cost the INSURANCE CO.'s money, but that was listed with my motives. It did not cost any of us anything other than what we donated after 911.

Like the war in IRAQ, it doesnt cost BIG BUSINESS money, it costs the Taxpayers. However, it is Big Business that profits.

By all means, continue. I hope we get some more motives compiled.

I doubt O.B.L. wanted to stage a war in which he hit us once, and UK once, coincidentally enough to get enough public support to get us both involved in M.E. conflicts.

Think about it this way:

Bin Laden needed to cause the most destruction possible in order to kill the most people. That was his goal. Kill as many collaborators as possible. Attacking financial and military targets was a direct attack at the US military and economy.

That's Bin Laden's motive. Kill alot of infadels, then bring more infadels to kill to your doorstep.

The motive for Bush co? Create a presence in the Middle East, Destroy Civil liberties and get rich?

The thing about the Bush motive is there are SO many other ways to do this! All they would have needed was ONE plane hit the towers and that tower to fall. That would have people waving their flags and leaving the US free to invade Afghanistan. They wouldn't have gone to that extent and so heavily risk exposure. It's just not logical.

As for Osama and his tapes - There is ONE tape of him denying it which was made only days after 9/11. Perhaps he thought denying it would keep the US at bay. Once US forces started operating in Afghanistan there's no point in denying it anymore. Osama and his followers have confessed to 9/11.

And in reference to CT'e - get over it. No one cares about the grammar and no one thinks your super intelligent by pointing the error out.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Think about it this way:

Bin Laden needed to cause the most destruction possible in order to kill the most people. That was his goal. Kill as many collaborators as possible. Attacking financial and military targets was a direct attack at the US military and economy.

That's Bin Laden's motive. Kill alot of infadels, then bring more infadels to kill to your doorstep.

The motive for Bush co? Create a presence in the Middle East, Destroy Civil liberties and get rich?

As for Osama and his tapes - There is ONE tape of him denying it which was made only days after 9/11. Perhaps he thought denying it would keep the US at bay. Once US forces started operating in Afghanistan there's no point in denying it anymore. Osama and his followers have confessed to 9/11.

If Osamas main goal was to kill as many infidels as possible, wouldn't he hit the towers when they were full of workers not before a majority of them were there.

Osama denied this on more than one occasion. First, immediately after the attacks, and the other most memorable one, Cheney pointed out during november of the Kerry Vs. Bush elections. Cheney tried to scare the public by saying "Osama said he'd strike again" (not direct quote). At that time i looked for the transcripts from the video. O.B.L's full quote was basically, I didn't do it, if the american public doesnt get to the bottom of this (referring to who actually did) it will happen again.

1st denial - sunday after the attacks
www.dignityonline.com...

2nd denial - Sept 28th in an interview. Directly states either Israel or Secret services inside US govt did.
911review.com...

This is CNN's watered down version of his speech from a video tape.
www.cnn.com...

It is grossly misinterpreted and outright plays off O.B.L. admitting to the attacks. As my friend and co-worker, Tito by nickname, a saudi fluent in Arabic points out, in the accurate version osama points to the US as the culprit. I found the transcript on al jazeera about a year ago, read the whole thing twice, and as this was my first bit of detective work into the 911 conspiracies, showed multiple friends. I was employed at an Middle Eastern resurant call Clay Oven in Florida and had my friend listen to the audio. Neither version, the audio or the Aljazeera transcript admitted a connection between him and 911. CNN's version's i can assure you is not in the least bit accurate. I went to Aljazeera again to find the transcript and it seems to have been removed. If anyone can help me find this, as im sure it is an important piece for Aljazeera, i would appreciate it. I'll keep looking and try to post what i found.

LOL...see im not crazy. Compare this, which is the TRUE transcript of the November 2004 Bin Laden Video.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...


"But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred." - OBL.

"it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children" - OBL.

He does say he thought about it, but he denies it again in november.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
And in reference to CT'e - get over it. No one cares about the grammar and no one thinks your super intelligent by pointing the error out.

Well, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

I never claimed super intelligence by pointing out "CTer" is a silly label that is starting to be thrown around. It's intended to be a mocking style of a name as much as "official story swallowers" label that others use.

All I suggested is that people drop the labels (besides the fact that it doesn't make sense). If you have a problem with that and prefer to label people instead, that's your issue.

I personally would not like to have someone call me a name, racial slur, or whatever and then be told "get over it" when I pointed out that it's rude. That's just bad manners.

And kudos to Pedro for his comments AND for seeing some humor in it.

I can give you some possible motivations for people on our side of the ocean to be involved:

First, gas/oil pipelines. We began construction of pipelines in both Afghanistan and Iraq shortly after we invaded each country. What would happen if the oil supply were cut off from the US? It would pretty much destroy our economy. Does not the 'security benefit' of having military bases sitting on top of two sources sound like a good motive?

Second, protecting the US dollar. Iraq switched to trading oil from the US dollar to Euro, under a year before 9-11 and our shortly subsequent invasion. Then we put them back on the dollar. Iran now also sells oil in euros, and we're talking about invading them next. What would happen if the world stopped trading oil in dollars? Here's what these people have to say:

www.trinicenter.com...
www.globalresearch.ca...

Now...it could be argued that 911 was not a necessary pretext. Maybe. It might not have been *necessary* but the fact remains that 9-11 WAS the pretext that DID get us to invade both Afghanistan, and Iraq, where we then did build both of those pipelines. In fact, here's a fascinating timeline which claims that the Bush administration was in active negotiations with the Taliban to arrange that very thing, seven monhs before 9-11, and continued meeting with them up untill five weeks before 9-11:

www.ringnebula.com...

And, while the above two stabilizing factors for our entire economy would probably have been enough, you also have to consider that:

a) The Bush family has had financial ties to oil for decades, and has likely benefitted tremendously from the controlled scarcity that has since existed
b) Cheney was CEO for five years of Haliburton, the company which received extreme preference for the construction work
c) Opium production in Afghanistan has increased massively since our presence there, and I think it's been understood for quite some time that the CIA is heavily involved in the drug smuggling business.

So...two major motivations of national financial security, sweetened by a bunch of personal financial incentives for the people directly involved?

How's that for motivation?

Bucket Man


[edit on 1-11-2006 by LordBucket]

I can add dead bodies for the occult sacrifice ceremony. Mass societal brainwashing operation for future benefit. Warning to several federal agencies that 'you can't touch us.'

Thanks Lord bucket for adding something constructive to the thread....
Ok now, so is the only motive we could come up with for O. Bin "he hates our freedom" oh yeah, and doctor Fungis, he wanted to kill as many infidels as possible.

So far based on the possible motives, if i were a detective, i would list US as prime suspect.

Someone please add something beneficial to the official stories side besides, they hate americans. I am under the impression that just hating america isnt enough to be labeled prime suspect.

no doubts friends , that trangedy happened caz' of terror