9/11 and WMDs

I would have to speculate that the reason they didn't plant WMDs would be the simplest;

They didn't need to.

As said before, there would be to many ways to track these weapons back to their country/company of origin, making it necessary to answer inconvienient questions such as "Why do your records show this batch of sarin was sold to Israel?" or similar lines.

Once troops were there in Iraq, with the war in full swing, it didn't matter if they found WMDs or not. They were there. Saddam was out. Bases were being rapidly constructed for long-term occupation. Who's going to make them leave? Whatever the prime reason to be there, oil, control, or just pumping up Halliburton's bottom line, it was "mission accomplished" for the backers of the Bush regime.

They knew that they could just pass the non-existent weapons over with an "Oops...Bad intel, sorry." They knew the media would yell some for good form, but would quickly move on to the next atrocity, and the public would pretty much forget the whole matter. The next American Idol was much more compelling.

Besides, if things went "worst case" on them, they just toss Bush and Rumsfeld to the wolves, move Cheney to a nice out of sight position, and install the next public face for the media. Those behind the power would just keep on plugging away with their war, never missing a beat, and never having to worry about those pesky, non-existent WMDs.

I appreciate all the thoughtful responses. I especially appreciate the civil discourse.
Let's hear some more opinions.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Additionally, I dont think it would have been impossible to get a hundred kilos of enriched Uranium into Iraq and tag it on them. There may have been alot of doubt and suspicion, but no more than exists surrounding 9/11.

If Iraq has no means of making enriched Uranium, how would the people of the world see this as plausible? Unless they bought it from someone. But after what's his name said that Iraq wasn't buying enriched Uranium, that was cut off.

BTW, if you don't know what I'm talking about. It was Valerie Plumes' husband. Wonder why she was outed as a spy?

So, after that they tried the WMD angle.

The Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story isn't over yet. Sometime next year Scooter Libby will go to trial or Fitzpatrick will drop the bogus charges of "providing false testimony" or something like that.

But outing Plame isn't even the story. The story is: Wilson was a tool of certain faction within the CIA that wanted there to be no Nigerian-Iraqi yellowcake connection, so they get one of their insiders (Plame's) husband to go over there, have a few meetings, and write the report they wanted him to write.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
But outing Plame isn't even the story. The story is: Wilson was a tool of certain faction within the CIA that wanted there to be no Nigerian-Iraqi yellowcake connection, so they get one of their insiders (Plame's) husband to go over there, have a few meetings, and write the report they wanted him to write.

I've heard a different story. The story goes along the lines of Cheney wanted there to be a connection with the yellow cake. Wilson (thanks for the name) came back and said no there is no connection and suddenly his wife's outed for being a spy.....by the office of Cheney. Coincidence? I think not.

I suggest watching "Frontline: The Darkside"

www.pbs.org...

It has testimony from people who were there who would know. It also is in relevance to this thread.

[edit on 11/17/2006 by Griff]

Griff,
I've heard that story too...but Richard Armitage has admitted that he was the one who gave Plame's name and connection to Wilson to Robert Novak. Also After many months of questioning and investigation Fitzpatrick's only charge was obstruction (against Scooter). This despite report after report from Jason Leopold (TruthOut) that Cheney was going to jail. Turned out to be patently false and Leopold insisted he had 100% ironclad inside proof.

Let me throw out a curve ball here. What if Sadam actually believed that he had chemical and nuclear weapons programs? I think that he was being scammed. He was paying millions and millions of dollars for something that didn't exist. Certain people's opposition to the US invasion of Iraq wasn't because of their concern about Iraq it was because they were afraid of being found out, or losing their "cash cow". Looking back at the intelligence information this is one of the few theories that makes sense. The reason that no WMDs were found is because there were not any in the first place because they were a scam.

Jim,

I'd have to say it's possible. Another theory that could be.

Darkblue what would make you believe the Us Goverment could of been behind it, are there not enough examples from History to provide you with the clues. What is it that makes you not beleive. Is it because you think your Goverment would not be capable of such an act or is it something else?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Let me throw out a curve ball here. What if Sadam actually believed that he had chemical and nuclear weapons programs? I think that he was being scammed. He was paying millions and millions of dollars for something that didn't exist. Certain people's opposition to the US invasion of Iraq wasn't because of their concern about Iraq it was because they were afraid of being found out, or losing their "cash cow". Looking back at the intelligence information this is one of the few theories that makes sense. The reason that no WMDs were found is because there were not any in the first place because they were a scam.

Very possible, infact I personally believe that this is at least as likely as the transport of WMD out of the country (to Syria or Jordan) while the UN was absent in 2002.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Darkblue what would make you believe the Us Goverment could of been behind it, are there not enough examples from History to provide you with the clues. What is it that makes you not beleive. Is it because you think your Goverment would not be capable of such an act or is it something else?

I'll backpedal a bit. I won't say it is 100% impossible for the Govt to have been responsible for 9/11. My belief is it's something like 98-99% unlikely. Not due to technical or logistical reasons, but ironically, because of them. I believe too many people would have had to have been involved, and someone would have sung or accidentaly revealed incontravertible evidence by now.

It's much more plausible that a small group of people in the govt. had general or even specific knowledge of a pending attack and did nothing to stop it in order to use it to implement their agenda(s). Or maybe even they did some things to lessen its serverity?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I'll backpedal a bit. I won't say it is 100% impossible for the Govt to have been responsible for 9/11. My belief is it's something like 98-99% unlikely. Not due to technical or logistical reasons, but ironically, because of them. I believe too many people would have had to have been involved, and someone would have sung or accidentaly revealed incontravertible evidence by now.

It's much more plausible that a small group of people in the govt. had general or even specific knowledge of a pending attack and did nothing to stop it in order to use it to implement their agenda(s). Or maybe even they did some things to lessen its serverity?

This I can accept. Well put.
You have voted darkbluesky for the Way Above Top Secret award.

9/11 wasn't an international event that was investigated by a group of independent nations.

Planting WMDs in Iraq would have naturally warranted such an investigation as to where any WMDs came from, etc., when the UN was keeping a fairly tight watch over what Saddam was importing, or even trying to smuggle in. They once promptly caught him smuggling in missiles with illegal ranges and made him dispose of them.

Two things, really. One is that Iraq isn't Kansas, so to speak. That's not US property, that's Iraq property; investigations would have been international, and independent. Not to say that such an investigation couldn't be a whitewash, but getting it to cover the US's ass might not be so easy as a US federal agency that would be much easier to manage by US factions. As someone else has pointed out, it didn't ultimately matter anyway. We're still there. US citizens aren't taking to it like they could be right now.

The second is that this whole argument (if taken to BE an argument) is a non sequitur, which means it does not logically follow that since there were no planted WMDs, therefore 9/11 was not carried out by Western factions, and not Mid-Eastern factions.


And btw, some WMDs were found (by a Polish team, if I remember correctly), but they were not new. As in, Saddam wasn't producing them at the time. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq War when we sold them to him, and they were in pitiful shape.

[edit on 17-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Two things, really. One is that Iraq isn't Kansas, so to speak. That's not US property, that's Iraq property; investigations would have been international, and independent. Not to say that such an investigation couldn't be a whitewash, but getting it to cover the US's ass might not be so easy as a US federal agency that would be much easier to manage by US factions. As someone else has pointed out, it didn't ultimately matter anyway. We're still there. US citizens aren't taking to it like they could be right now.

You have a valid point in that it hasn't mattered in the big picture.

The second is that this whole argument (if taken to BE an argument) is a non sequitur, which means it does not logically follow that since there were no planted WMDs, therefore 9/11 was not carried out by Western factions, and not Mid-Eastern factions.

As you point out, this wasn't intended to be an argument. I just posed a question and asked for opinions. My opinion is that if the US Gov. could plan and execute 9/11, they could plant WMD in Iraq. It does follow logically (to me at least) that if they could do and did do the former, it would have been possible and beneficial to have done the latter. I agree with you however that the non-occurence of latter does not preclude the former.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I know I said I didnt want this thread to morph into a technical debate about the collapse of the bldgs, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you mean by a secondary device?

A device (not technically a bomb) that helped bring down the buildings other than the "Raging office fires" and plane impacts.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Really?...

and who made that conclusion, and what are the reasons this conclusion was reached?...

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Many have made that conclusion, take off the blinders.

I believe the reasons for the conclusion are what we and many others have debated since the beginning of the conspiracy, regarding the destruction of the inner core, the molten metal in the basements of the WTCs, the fall velocity of WTC 7, the nature of the fires, the impact damage from the planes, the amount of explosure the trusses endured from the fires.

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I know I said I didnt want this thread to morph into a technical debate about the collapse of the bldgs, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you mean by a secondary device?

A device (not technically a bomb) that helped bring down the buildings other than the "Raging office fires" and plane impacts.

Other than some form of focused detonation such as thermite or some kind of shaped charges, I can't imagine what you might be thinking of.

Intentional structural sabotage?

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Intentional structural sabotage?

Depends on people's personal theories.. what are you getting at?

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Intentional structural sabotage?

Depends on people's personal theories.. what are you getting at?

Nothing, I guess. It seemed to me you had a specific theory but were being gaurded about it. Guess I was wrong.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Intentional structural sabotage?

Depends on people's personal theories.. what are you getting at?

Nothing, I guess. It seemed to me you had a specific theory but were being gaurded about it. Guess I was wrong.

I do but it's not relevant to the thread