This is What 9/11 Truth is Up Against.

Originally posted by yeti101
what motivation does the US government have for carrying out 9/11?

The support of it's people to go to war so that they don't revolt against their own government which is looking like it's about to happen...

Remember the first thing they did after 911? they did a nation wide poll and the question was, should USA go to war?

What does that say about motivations? It's right in our face all the time, you just got to see it.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by selfless]

yeti101


Well for one perhaps they thought Al'Qaeda would soon have the capability of dropping a Nuke in a major city, or a dirty bomb.

They might have felt that an event would justify large scale military operations as well a new policy at home such as the Patriot Act. Without a new Pearl Harbour they might have felt it difficult to proceed.

It could also be a pre-text for WAR.

PNAC even spoke of a 'Pearl Harbour' attack being needed.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by talisman]

talisman, do you not think a slightly less damaging operation could have brought about the oppertunity to invade afghanistan? Old georgy boy went a bit OTT on the fatality count dont you think?

yeti101

Its not what "I" think.

The neo-cons thought this. They even said this in PNAC.

They basically said that without a NEW PEARL HARBOUR their objectives would not be realized.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by talisman]

well they managed to invade iraq on the issue of WMD. Not a new pearl harbor. I dont think that arguement holds.

Originally posted by yeti101
well they managed to invade iraq on the issue of WMD. Not a new pearl harbor. I dont think that arguement holds.

The argument that don't hold is the WMD argument, since there was no WMD to be found.

yeti101

Its not what I or you think. They think it holds. That is written in PNAC.

They would have had a much harder time taking Iraq and its OIL without some kind of huge event. Without 9/11 the invasion of IRAQ would be much more difficult then was.

Now, The United States has thought like this before.

Killing innocent refugees or creating a Terror Campaign in Washington and Miami. They have planned things like this before.

One life or 1000. No-one should have right to plan taking innocent lives, whether ONE OR A Thousand.

The Military in the past has planned in taking lives, all in the interest of starting a war.

correct, but they still acheived their objective of invading iraq.

which is exactly my point.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
correct, but they still acheived their objective of invading iraq.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by yeti101]

And would have never been able to do that if 911 didn't happen.

yeti101

Also the Patriot Act was a direct result of 9/11, taking away peoples freedoms. Again the pre-emptive war strategy was only possible after 9/11.

Making people feel *FEAR* by playing the 'Terrorist Boogeyman' card at will.

pure speculation, In my opinion the USA was going to invade iraq even if 9/11 happened or not.


All the justification of war was placed on WMD not 9/11.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by yeti101]

Its not PURE speculation.

Its in PNAC. Without a NEW PEARL HARBOUR, they admit their objectives would not be realized.

but their objectives of invading iraq were not acheived by 9/11.

did you miss all of col. powells presentations to the UN on iraqs WMDs? He never mentioned 9/11 once.

But Cheney sure did as well as Bush.

Rumsfeld tried to link Al'Qaeda to Iraq.

PNAC clearly stated what was needed.


The whole WMD was built on fear, and that was built on 9/11....The cycle of fear that they keep people in.

People need to break out of it and clearly see what is happening.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by talisman]

politicians will seize on any event which can garner support for their position. If they didnt try manipulate 9/11 for their benefit it would have been something else. Like the reasons theyre now giving for the war..."to give iraqies their freedom" & " to remove saddam becuase he was a brutal dictator"

9/11 certainly wasnt the main reason being touted for going to war. If it was you might have a point. But the whole "new pearl harbor" falls down becuase its not the main reason given.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by yeti101]

yeti101

They don't have to give the "NEW PEARL HARBOUR" argument sine they believed after 9/11 it was in the American mind.

At the end of the day people who are willing to send young men and woman to die for no reason in IRAQ are willing to do anything. For OIL, for forward military bases, for geo-political reasons.

They kept the WMD thing in peoples minds, because they knew the fear cycle had begun.

PNAC is not US policy. It is a think tank. There may be similarities since it is a mainly Right wing brotherhood. As far as Iraq, we did not need 9/11 for that. I mean, if poeople think that the administration is so powerful, they woul not need an excuse. They would just do it.

9/11 Truth to me is a bad example of what can happen with a good idea and poor planning. 9/11 Truth is not exposing the truth but actually spreading a disinfo campaign that is more political that humanitarian or searching for truth.

The facts are there to come to a conclusion as to what happened on 9/11. Unless you look at both sides you are blind to what the truth can be.

Originally posted by esdad71
PNAC is not US policy. It is a think tank. There may be similarities...

Yeah... only a few PNAC members served/serving with W... LOL

* William Kristol
* Robert Kagan
* Bruce P. Jackson
* Mark Gerson
* Randy Scheunemann
* Ellen Bork
* Gary Schmitt
* Thomas Donnelly
* Reuel Marc Gerecht.
* George W. Bush, 43rd US President
* Karl Rove
* Richard Armitage
* William J. Bennett
* Jeb Bush
* Dick Cheney, US Vice President
* Zalmay Khalilzad
* Lewis "Scooter" Libby
* Richard Perle
* Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense
* Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, former Deputy Secretary of Defense.
* Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
* James B. Borow, former deputy director of the NSA, co-founder of the Illinois Center for Core Values
* Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota
* Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
* Steve Forbes, publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
* Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
* Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
* Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
* Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist
* Christopher Maletz
* Daniel McKivergan
* Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
* Dan Quayle, former vice-president
* Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
* Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation
* Abram Shulsky, former Director of Office of Special Plans
* Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman
* George Weigel, Roman Catholic theologian and political commentator
* R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency for President Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen Hamilton


[edit on 7-5-2007 by Pootie]

PNAC - 9/2000 - "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.""

W - 9/11/2001 - "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

I am sure that is just a coincidence...

THAT IS FACT.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by yeti101
but their objectives of invading iraq were not acheived by 9/11.

did you miss all of col. powells presentations to the UN on iraqs WMDs? He never mentioned 9/11 once.

You're trying to re-write history here. In the immediate aftermath few if any Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11. By September 2003 as many as 69% believed he was involved, acording to The Washington Post. And it's really no great surprise, for whilst there does appear to have been an effort on the part of the Administration to avoid explicitly linking Saddam and 9/11, many of their statements implied a link, just by virtue, for example, of mentioning Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.

Here's how The Christian Science Monitor put it.

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

And it didn't go unnoticed by the House of Representatives, whose report entitle Iraq on the Record lists 237 misleading statements (not including those subsequently found to have been made unwittingly) by just five key Administration officials. Many of those linked Saddam/Iraq to al Qaeda and by extension to 9/11.

In sum, the perception of a link between 9/11 and Saddam played a big part in persuading Americans to support the invasion of Iraq.