Conspirators.....Answer Me This!

Let me first say that I am a firm believer of what the evidence suggests, and that is that 911 was indeed a "False flag" operation preformed by the US government. Nothing is more obvious than WTC 7 IMO. But that is beside the point. If indeed 911 was perpetrated by Uncle Sam, what I don't get is why 3,000 people had to die on that day.

If the official reason for going to war was WMD's and our saftey, why did they need to stage a terror attack in the first place? Couldn't they have just told the American public the WMD story and thats it? Why did they have to go through all that planning and ultimately murder thousands of peolpe? Just to "prove" that "terror" was real and was a threat to the homeland? Come on! If the sheeple of this country went along with the WMD story, (like most of the country did) then why on Earth did they have to MURDER innocent lives?

I have never heard a single reason for this, on the conspiracy side that is, as to why 911 had to happen. We didn't go to war FOR 911!!! We went for WMD's!

To the Mod Squad:
If this topic has been bled to death, by all means throw me in with Oscar.

Although im not sure what i believe (wtc7 is the one thing that will probably change mine and others opinion eventually!) im sure that if it was a flase flag operation it was not destined to only be a justification for invading foreign countries.

We (or you, me being in Ireland) have come a long way since then and a lot have things have been done and changed in order to "protect your freedoms".

Patriot Act.
Guantanamo and other black site prisons.
Rights (or lack of) of detainees.
The recent military intervention act and the Emergency Presidential dictatorship proposal/act.
Numerous media outlets fearmongering "omg terror threat high!".
The elusive and somewhat overstated Al Queda[scapegoat, assuming false flag].
The harrasment of numerous innocent Muslims in the US, UK, her and abroad, some of which have been in Guantanamo and have since been released without charge.

Im sure theres more.

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Azriphale]

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Azriphale]

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
If the official reason for going to war was WMD's and our saftey, why did they need to stage a terror attack in the first place? Couldn't they have just told the American public the WMD story and thats it? Why did they have to go through all that planning and ultimately murder thousands of peolpe? Just to "prove" that "terror" was real and was a threat to the homeland? Come on! If the sheeple of this country went along with the WMD story, (like most of the country did) then why on Earth did they have to MURDER innocent lives?

I have never heard a single reason for this, on the conspiracy side that is, as to why 911 had to happen. We didn't go to war FOR 911!!! We went for WMD's!

Actually we did go to war as a direct result of 9/11. Because of 9/11 and the Taliban's refusal to turn over Osama Bin Laden (who was blamed for the 9/11 attacks), we went to war and invaded Afghanistan. The WMD story was our reason for going into Iraq. It amazes me how many people seem to have forgotten that there are still ongoing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

To answer your original question though, the American public would not have accepted the idea of war without the high body count of the 9/11 attacks. Had the buildings been nearly empty and went down, it would not have been as important. It would not have gotten the emotional response from the public that you would need to get support for a war. Pre 9/11 life was still pretty rosey and peaceful for most people. Then they got to watch the attacks on TV, see people jumping out of a burning building live on TV, watch thousands die as the buildings come down. If it was a scene from a Hollywood movie, it would have won awards because of the emotional impact it would have drawn from it's viewers.

After the 9/11 attacks, mainly due to the enormous body count of innocent people, the general public wanted revenge and bloodshed. The country would have supported anyone who suggested war. The general public would have taken up arms themselves if Bush had said to do it and pointed them in a direction to attack. Without the body count and the emotional reaction, no excuse would have been good enough to go to war.

Section8citizen said:

the American public would not have accepted the idea of war without the high body count of the 9/11 attacks.

I agree with this statement.Can you imagine all the folks who want revenge after 9/11?I know i did.I wonder how many folks did what Pat Tillman did and joined the armed forces after and because of the attacks.I bet the number is very high.

I've got one word(or acronym) for you, PNAC.

"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

www.democraticunderground.com...

There was more than one war started after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Afghanistan came first followed by Iraq.

Sometime within the last year retired general Wesley Clark made public statements saying that he heard within the Pentagon that a plan to invade six countries over five years was originally outlined immediately following September 11, 2001. It did not turn out that way, but then not all conspiracies are perfect and work out exactly as planned. See the 1972 Watergate break-in as an example.

Of course the USA does not seem to have given up on further military conquests in the Middle East and may yet fulfill the goals it has been alleged to have outlined by Wesley Clark.

I've got a slightly different take on this from some of the other posters although I agree with much of what has been said. I personally believe that the high death toll on the day was a mistake caused by fear that the FDNY was going to put the fires out too quickly.

I have a gut feeling that the plan was that the fires should burn until all but a few of the fire department responders had evacuated the building and then the controlled demo would begin.

The reason I believe this is that the towers fell in the reverse order to what they would have, given a completely natural unfolding of the planes, fires scenario. The first tower hit should have been the first to fall, especially considering that it was harder hit than the second one, with more fuel burning inside the building.

There is some reason to suspect that radio transmissions from the South Tower may have lead the perps to believe that it was imperative to hurriedly blow that tower before more and more good news was radioed to fire chiefs below.

I loathe the people who did this but I truly believe they were trying to avoid a bloodbath and that it was in their plans at the presentation stage. I think that is one of the major reasons that they were able to get so many otherwise sane people to sign on and support this scam.

I dont think that they cared about the killing of these people. there agenda at the time was more than just trying to go to war. The killing of americans was the icing on the cake. Let me point out a few things.

1- vice president cheney.
2- Cheney
3- cheney
4- Oh yea did i mention chaney?
www.commondreams.org...
www.time.com...
blog.washingtonpost.com...
www.csmonitor.com...
www.tvnewslies.org...
www.ontheissues.org...

Need i say more!! There are many other factors like wtc 7 and the lost records that would have proven inside trading against companies like enron just to name a few. And lets not forget about the other players in this game. There is Rumsfeld, Rudy Giuliani who was not about to be re-elected but after 9/11 people forgot about the reasons why and voted him in for what they saw as a mayor pulling a city together after a tragic event. Pathetic if you ask me. www.usnews.com...
And i dont think i need to put good ole george bush on the list, If you cant see his involvment then well, You need to look a little harder. To many links to post against him. But i tell you what, i will Compile all the data ( which is so much that it will take a few weeks) And i will post them in a new thread titled - Foul Play, politics and the puppet master's Greatest show!

Hope to see you there. And i can tell you now that most of what i will show you wont have anything to do with Molten metal or bombs going off in the towers. It will show documentation and words right from the horses mouth.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The first tower hit should have been the first to fall, especially considering that it was harder hit than the second one, with more fuel burning inside the building.

Thats another thing that strikes me aside from wtc7. The second tower was hit at an angle and the plane took out less columns than the first tower that was hit straight on.

The south tower was hit LOWER down --thus having to support more weight when the structure became weakened by plane damage and the resulting fires. Thus it fell sooner--due to more weight from above.

To the OP:

I agree that the 9/11 attacks lack motive from our government.

I fully believe the US could have done everything it has done in Afganistan and Iraq with or without the deaths on 9/11

Clinton bombed the heck outta Bosnia, he also sent cruise missles into Afganistan. This was done before 9/11. I didn't remember being asked if it was Ok.

Remember the footage of Taliban using Soccer fields to carry out executions --real horrorshow like. How about the horrible stories coming from women that escaped a Taliban lead Afganistan? Those civil rights atrocities coupled with the fact that the Taliban were harboring Al Queda members that were already wanted for the deaths of many US servicemen, citizens, and allied workers affiliated with the USA. Don't you think that was enough -- had we decided to focus our efforts there regardless of 9/11 or not?

Furthermore, why would a government that is (allegedly) Soooo EVIL even give a rat's buttock about "if the citizens are supportive of a retaliation or not" I mean they just (allegedly) killed 3000 of their own citizens-- heck it could have even been one of their grandmothers. Nope, ain't buying it!

Further still, Why would this (fictional) borg-like government that can forsee the future like some Darth Vader character. Why would they go through all of the trouble of: Getting 19 "patsys' into the US, train them for years to become competent piolts, recruit demolitions experts that are far beyond conventional,

fire up a supersecret missle base, and fly planes into the twin towers at a very high rate of speed ( where a screw-up would be possible)

Detonate the twin towers in a controlled demolition (where a screw-up would be VERY possible due to the newly formed and unknown areas of plane damage)

Decide NOT to fly a third plane into the Pentagon but to fake everyone out ( where a screw-up is possible)

But instead fire a cruise missle into the Pentagon (because no one would notice the difference between a cruise missle, and a big-ass silver Boeing 757-- and a screw-up is possible, but only to a person with the ability to see)

Then sneak around a Pennsilvania field scattering metal shards thinking it looks just like a *"conventional"* plane crash ( cause no one would notice --and a screw-up is possible)

While taking the 'real" plane and passengers to god knows where-- like an Elvis beaming up to an alien spacecraft. ( where a screw-up could happen)

And the Above is just the TIP of the Iceberg Paraniodica.

Naw, if the Government was as evil and smart as some of you folks seem to think, they would have just hired a couple of 4 man teams of "false flag" Al Queda operatives and blown themselves up in two full elementary schools. Don't you think that would have been enough to galvanize the country-- with A LOT less risk?

Think about that.



[edit on 28-7-2007 by Taxi-Driver]

What I don't get about the 9/11 conspiracy is that it's a huge risk for very little reward.

Risk: People find out about false flag operation, all conspirators face execution or lengthy prison sentences, total failure of faith in government for generations.

Reward: People dislike Middle East for a few years. We didn't give a crap about them before. We also lose a few more freedoms, but there's easier ways to do it.

Simply put, it's like playing Russian Roulette. The reward can never outweigh the risk.

But also, if the government can plan and execute 9/11 with nobody coming forward and very quesitonable evidence, why the hell couldn't they bury a few WMD's in the Iraqi desert after they took the place over? That would involve a mere fraction of the people needed to take down the WTC, and they'd all be military and sworn to secrecy anyway. And it's very easy to make witnesses disappear in a desert warzone.

It's just not logical.

Originally posted by Esoterica
But also, if the government can plan and execute 9/11 with nobody coming forward and very quesitonable evidence, why the hell couldn't they bury a few WMD's in the Iraqi desert after they took the place over? That would involve a mere fraction of the people needed to take down the WTC, and they'd all be military and sworn to secrecy anyway. And it's very easy to make witnesses disappear in a desert warzone.
It's just not logical.

Very good point!
Burying WMD's in the desert seems easy compared to what actually happened. As far as nobody coming forward, I believe any would-be whistle blower that has any information regarding a coverup is straight up afriad for their lives. If many people are responsable and or profited from 911(All the put options, the crazy amount of gold underneath the building, the insurance settlement ect) then there are just that many more people wanting to "shush" a would-be "hero" up.

Originally posted by Esoterica
But also, if the government can plan and execute 9/11 with nobody coming forward and very quesitonable evidence, why the hell couldn't they bury a few WMD's in the Iraqi desert after they took the place over?

Because at that point, they never thought it really mattered for their own ends, and the people would lap it up like a lactose-intolerant kitten? (ie., bad results)

That would involve a mere fraction of the people needed to take down the WTC, and they'd all be military and sworn to secrecy anyway. And it's very easy to make witnesses disappear in a desert warzone.

Obviously not so easy, with the expansion into the case of Pat Tillman.

It's just not logical.

I disagree.

We went to war for war profits.

Just like Hitler did.

Thats why you see Bush characterized as a Nazi... on some forums.

The biggest WWII secret, Hitler survived and covered by Intel.

Funding the MIC and Hitler's still secret weapons is policy of the Nazis.

Over simplified but the need to crush IRAQ was evident and WMDs
was a good excuse as any.

Ed: Why 9/11, I don't know. Ultimate dis info about planes to news media
and explosives taken from vans without sniffer dogs and wired to explode
in the WTC top to bottom, who did that. I don't know either.


[edit on 7/28/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

We went to war for several reasons.

Yes, the elite and the military industrial complex needed (or wanted) the money.

George Bush flat out stated that Saddam had tried to kill his father and that gave him the red a$$.

Laura Bush Hated the Taliban and how they treated women. She wanted them beaten into submission. The only thing more powerful than the president is the woman he sleeps with.

All of these things, and many others, converged at a point and time where anything could be justified.

As a result, the shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan had given to the world was transformed into Dracula's castle.

We are all poorer for the experiance.

wupy

Originally posted by niteboy82
Because at that point, they never thought it really mattered for their own ends, and the people would lap it up like a lactose-intolerant kitten? (ie., bad results)

But... people didn't. His approval wasn't all that great, wouldn't he want to silence his detractors?

Obviously not so easy, with the expansion into the case of Pat Tillman.

In one sentence, you say Bush didn't hide WMDs. Very next sentence, you infer Pat Tillman was killed because he knew something about planting WMDs? Which is it?

Originally posted by Esoterica
But... people didn't. His approval wasn't all that great, wouldn't he want to silence his detractors?

Has this war not been a great distraction, and means for exploitation, for them?

In one sentence, you say Bush didn't hide WMDs. Very next sentence, you infer Pat Tillman was killed because he knew something about planting WMDs? Which is it?

You miss understand. I mentioned Pat Tillman, as you mentioned how easy it would be to make someone simply "disappear" in desert warfare. Obviously not.

He didn't hide WMD's, because they weren't really what he inferred them to be in the first place. I want more than a few rusty missiles containing some outdated gas before I spend over 500 billion for it, and there are still starving hungry people on the streets of the country spending that 500 billion.

Originally posted by mrwupy
Laura Bush Hated the Taliban and how they treated women. She wanted them beaten into submission. The only thing more powerful than the president is the woman he sleeps with.
...................
We are all poorer for the experiance.

Ahh, you gave me a disgusting mental image!
But you are right, women do have a powerful influence over men.

Thanks for the replies people!

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

I agree that the 9/11 attacks lack motive from our government.

I fully believe the US could have done everything it has done in Afganistan and Iraq with or without the deaths on 9/11

Then you are completely delusional and prefer a life of fantasy rather than reality. The US has/had major interests in the middle east and were looking for an opportunity to further their agenda in that region. Why don't you do a search on PNAC or US involvement in the ME over the last 60 years.

These neocons, and the like, were literally hoping for a "new pearl harbor" so it could be easier to convince the massives that pre-emptive invasions of these "terrorist harborers/WMD carrying" nations were a neccesity to protect them from future terror attacks. And Oh boy did it work! You morons bought this crap hook line and sinker and was ready to bomb the hell out of whatever country W wanted to.

Naw, if the Government was as evil and smart as some of you folks seem to think, they would have just hired a couple of 4 man teams of "false flag" Al Queda operatives and blown themselves up in two full elementary schools. Don't you think that would have been enough to galvanize the country-- with A LOT less risk?

Think about that.

Yeah, I have thought about it, I've thought about it years before 911 ever happened. You don't seem to get it and it's understandable for the most part. You want to continue to believe and maintain this disneyland mentality and the US could never do anything wrong or evil to it's own citizens. You think this is inconceivable right? Just as long as our government does evil to other countries that makes it okay right? Or are you even aware of what our gov(CIA) has done in other countries over the last 5 decades and beyond?

Anyway, there are people in the government that work in secrecy, as you should already know. The people that deal with public relations and are known by peers in DC aren't neccessarily going to be in on the "plan". These people's names are known and they interact too much with the general public.

Now of course a few people have to know something in DC, but they don't know too much. Cheney, IMO, is one that definately knew, while W(the chimp) knew something was going to happen but didn't know the details.

The ones beyond the 911 attacks are the ones that perform black op type secretive missions regularly. People who's name are unkown to the general public because they go by different names. ANd if you think I'm spouting hollywood nonsense... do CIA covert ops exist? and what do they do exactly? Oh yeah, that's right, they go by alias' and deceive people for a living.

Everything is compartmentalized, people are given direction and are required to execute orders without question. Most of the people wouldn't even have the slightest idea of what the ultimate outcome of their actions would be. Most, after 911, probably didn't even know they participated in the destruction.

Why don't you do a little reseach young mind and learn the real history of your country and your government.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
The south tower was hit LOWER down --thus having to support more weight when the structure became weakened by plane damage and the resulting fires. Thus it fell sooner--due to more weight from above.

What weight? The plane hitting the building did not add any extra weight that the building could not hold. The towers were designed to hold 5x their weight.

There is NO proof that any columns in the central structure were scratched let alone damaged. Do you really think an aluminum plane could destroy massive steel columns? After going through the steel outer mesh there would not have been much plane left to damage the central columns.

The bomb of 1993, which the FBI allowed to happen btw, opened up a 30 meter wide hole in the basement levels (you couldn't go much lower ) yet the tower remained standing for another 8 yrs with no problem.

Sry but your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



Then there is the problem of the tilt and rotation of the top section, which if there were no explosives of some kind somehow managed to break at least three laws of physics. See this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...