Why 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

Why 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

I have not entered into many discussions regrding 9/11 as a conspiracy because frankly, it is too incredulous a theory. There are too many rather large baits you'd have to swallow to accept it as a conspiracy, from holograms to controlled detonations, etc.

And that doesn't even answer the real question: Why pull it off?

Well, take your choice of reasons, but somehow they must all tie in with the War in Iraq:

We want to steal their oil (hasn't happened yet)

It was retaliation for an assasination attempt on 41

WMD (debatable)

To control a bubbling cauldron of terrorism in that section of the world.

Take your pick. But whichever Why you choose to go along with your Whoodunit, CT'ers think Bush did it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

There is a big problem with this whole scenario, and that is the lack of evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

So, why didn't the US go ahead and plant solid evidence at the scene of 9/11 that would have implicated Iraq? Why not create a money trail from the hijackers to Saddam? Hell, why not make the hijackers Iraqi, for goodness sake?

It would have been very easy to create evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. The fact that it never happened means that a) The gov't didn't do it, and b) AQ did it and the US used it as an opportunity to invade Iraq.

Just my .02

reply to post by jsobecky


If you ask any CTer what might have motivated elements within the US to plan and execute 9/11, you don't get Iraq - or at least that shouldn't be all you get.

You might want to look carefully at what has happened in Iraq and who's gained.

Things to consider:

• The post-dotcom US economy was slow and oh so low pre-9/11
  
• The wars in Afghanistan served to ignite the economy (defense, construction and energy sectors in particular)
  
• Iraq was quickly switched back to the petrodollar for oil transactions
  
• Iraq's oil industry is being opened up to foreign investment
  
• Iraq is geographically important, not only for US security of access to its energy, but also because of its proximity to the Caspian states including Iran.

Ultimately, in order to achieve what many CTers believe was the ultimate goal, Iraq had to be invaded, Saddam toppled and a long term US presence established.

Anyone who pays any attention what-so-ever knows that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush touts it and the sheeple believe it. There are actually still people out there who believe Saddam was directly responsible for the deed of 9/11 They've never so much as picked up a paper or opened a book to research for themselves. The truth would might compromise their comfortable lifestyle. They didn't need to plant any evidence or a trail of any sort. They've gotten away with it. So what if there are those who know the truth and see beyond what We're told- We shall be called 'Consiracy Theorists' and be forced to forever exchange Our beliefs on the internet- all the while being called crazy.

Peace. K*

Thats the thing, it wasn't the "government." It was probably a culmination of intelligence agencies working alongside private military contractors i.e stratcom. As to why they wanted to go into the middle-east, the answer is plain and simple: empire and end times prophecy. They need to have their foot in ancient Mesopotamia so that they can more effectively stir up trouble to bring about nuclear war. If we are not over there, there can be no pretext for the apocalypse. They didn't try to link Iraq to 911 because they designed this presidency to fail. Bush is purposely acting like a moron and doing everything wrong so they can better control who comes in to replace him (Hillary Clinton).

reply to post by Meatclown




Nice explanations there fellow crazies. Regardless of any belief in the conspiracy theories, some of them outlandish, we have to admit there is a veil of lies and deceit surrounding this whole war. We have to admit that oil executives are running the military. Then we can see the motives. Then we can prosecute the ones responsible for breaking the laws we as a nation and an international community have established. This is a moral issue of global proportions. Nations should never behave like street gangs or seek to misinform their populace. There should be no mechanism available for private entities to profit from escalating any conflict. We live and learn. After the pain of the truth sets in, nations can unite the factions within them and really make an effort towards peace and tolerance.
Then liberals and conservatives, fanatics and families, Jews and Muslims will all come together to fight the evil reptilian invaders that are under my couch, shape shifting and stuff.

So, why didn't the US go ahead and plant solid evidence at the scene of 9/11 that would have implicated Iraq? Why not create a money trail from the hijackers to Saddam? Hell, why not make the hijackers Iraqi, for goodness sake?

These are very very good questions.

There are large numbers of very very good questions left unanswered in this whole mess. Before I try to answer your questions, let me ask one of you.

Why won't the Bush administration release video footage from the surveillance cameras on the roof of the Pentagon?

Here's another one. What television station broadcast the footage of the first plane striking the North Tower that the president says he was watching on the morning of 911, before the second tower had been struck?

Here is another one. Why were the bin Laden family allowed to fly out of the US the day after 911 after only a cursory interrogation by the security services?

Here is another one. Why was bin Laden allowed to escape Tora Bora in an airlift to Pakistan?

But let's get to your questions. Why wouldn't the US have tried to implicate Iraq? I don't know if you remember, but Iraq had already been clobbered in one war. Personally I don't think Iraq would have been willing to risk another clobbering, simply to knock down a commercial property in New York. People wouldn't believe it. They needed a different kind of lie for Iraq. They had to up the ante to WMD's. They figured that would be believeable to the American people. They were right.

Your next question is very important and almost never discussed as to it's real significance on ATS. Although I gave it a going over in an unsucessful thread called "Is General Ahmad to people what WTC7 is to buildings on 911".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The fact of the matter is that Pakistan's, ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency), created a money trail from Khaled Sheik Mohammed, a known Al Quaeda operative, to Mohammed Atta, the reputed chief of the 19 hijackers involved in 911 and did it in a way that made it clear that the trail led back to them. If you know anything about them, it is like saying that it leads back to Uncle Sam.

You can read the thread to understand the nuances, but the main point is that the US was trying to build up Al Quaeda as a terrorist boogieman, that they could attack at any location that suits them. Why have to go to the trouble of creating a new phoney baloney scenario every time you want to attack another country. They have their mobile, shapeless villain in place now.

But the question about the "money trail" is an extremely good one and the facts around the money trail in this case point almost certainly to the reality that 911 was an inside job.

Why not make the hijackers Iraqi? After reading the above you should already know that. It just doesn't make any sense.


[edit on 21-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

Their is not enough evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (yet).

But their is plenty of evidence that the government may have let it happen, just like Pearl Harbor.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Why? Unlike Pearl Harbor that involved a nation attacking with a naval taskforce don’t you think that maybe 19 people can go under the radar?

Jsobecky, if it wasnt an "inside job" it was allowed to happen and they (the Potus) knew exactly when it would happen. He wanted to be the "war" president, after all. What other kind could he be???


Oh, btw,

All we are saying is that the WTC was blown up. It may have been an inside job or not; it may have been an outside job with insider cooperation. Inside, outside - doesn't matter.

How do we know the building was blown up? Because you can look at the videos and pictures and see the building being blown up and reduced to dust. That's how we know. There are no pancakes - just DUST.

What's weird is that the MSM (all of them) will not investigate or say even one serious word about it all. It's off limits to them. Three thousand Americans killed but they could not care less. Politicians, too - could not care less.

The fix is in. They know Americans are stupid, busy, or lazy and will not look into this on their own. It's called fool control. You're a fool. They control you.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Why? Unlike Pearl Harbor that involved a nation attacking with a naval taskforce don’t you think that maybe 19 people can go under the radar?

Well just like Pearl harbor we had prior warnings.

reply to post by jsobecky


You are assuming that it would have to be the Bush administration who was behind 9/11.

How does the WHY change if it was George Tenet and a faction within the CIA who were Clinton/Gore loyalists, and who wanted to thank Bush for stealing the election by dropping 9/11 on him during his watch?

Originally posted by mdzialo There are no pancakes - just DUST.

Yes, even NIST has changed it story again to say there was no pancake theory.

The reality of myriads of controversial events surrounding 911 do not paint a rosy rogue 19 probability.
The most damning conundrums of all were the billion dollar insurance policies by Silverstein weeks prior, and the millions of 'put' options on the airlines days before. I want to know who put those 'put' options on. If I put a 10 million dollar insurance policy on my wife, and she turned up dead next week, I think I'd have some 'xplainin' to do.

Originally posted by jpm1602
I want to know who put those 'put' options on. If I put a 10 million dollar insurance policy on my wife, and she turned up dead next week, I think I'd have some 'xplainin' to do.

Yes too many things happening. Also do not forget about a lot of top government and military people warned not to fly that day.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Their is not enough evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (yet).

Personally, I think that if the Bush administration, were to extradite General Ahmad of the ISI, who is believed to have given directions to Khaled Sheik Mohammed to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the general would simply tell the FBI interrogators that the ISI arranged for Atta to receive the money at the request of someone in the Bush administration, Rumsfeld, Cheney, take your pick.

That would prove that 911 was an inside job. QED.

That also answers the very amusing question, "Why has there been no attempt to extradite General Ahmad, the only universally acknowledged and accessible perpetrator in the 911 scenario?"

Every time I think about it I just chuckle and shake my head, then I'm sad for Americans and New Yorkers in particular. It's a shame.

And all those supposed cell phone calls from 35k feet that have been proven impossible. I think they overspinned it in some areas, and underspinned it in others. The 737 engine in the street was just tacky.

reply to post by jpm1602

I saw a great video on Google video once. It was one of those taken from a police patrol car. They were following a car that was weaving back and forth and finally pulled it over. A lady cop approached the car and asked the driver to get out. When he opened the door about twenty empty beer cans fell out of the car and started rolling around on the highway. The cop doubled over laughing.

From a law enforcement perspective, 911 is a little bit like that. Circumstantial evidence is like those beer cans, rolling around everywhere.

Hard proof on the other hand is what the law enforcement agencies are supposed to provide. I am totally confident that they could do that if they were permitted to by the authorities, but in this case the authorities are the perps. That's a problem.

Agreed Ippy, that 737 engine was just one of many big beer cans.
Truth and Peace.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

I have not entered into many discussions regrding 9/11 as a conspiracy because frankly, it is too incredulous a theory. There are too many rather large baits you'd have to swallow to accept it as a conspiracy, from holograms to controlled detonations, etc.

Ahh, instead of trying to explain every aspect of what did happen, question what they claim did happen. There is much less "bait" to "swallow" if you look at it this way and (IMO) if you examine what they claim happened you begin to see some rather blatant inconsistencies.

And that doesn't even answer the real question: Why pull it off?

Well, take your choice of reasons, but somehow they must all tie in with the War in Iraq:

We want to steal their oil (hasn't happened yet)

Read this

Do some research on Global Peak Oil as well. Politics exists to determine who gets what and how... Oil is going to be quite important over the next 20 years. It certainly would be a big help to the US if we got a nice friendly government in place in an oil-rich country.

It was retaliation for an assasination attempt on 41

WMD (debatable)

To control a bubbling cauldron of terrorism in that section of the world.

No idea.

Take your pick. But whichever Why you choose to go along with your Whoodunit, CT'ers think Bush did it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Bush did it? Um, I highly doubt that... in fact, I don't know many CT'ers that do.

There is a big problem with this whole scenario, and that is the lack of evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Lack of evidence? Even Bush can address that one.



But remember; if it's not linking them to 9/11 it's:
a) Bringing democracy to Iraq
b) Getting rid of Saddam
c) WMDs
d) etc...

So, why didn't the US go ahead and plant solid evidence at the scene of 9/11 that would have implicated Iraq? Why not create a money trail from the hijackers to Saddam? Hell, why not make the hijackers Iraqi, for goodness sake?

It would have been very easy to create evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. The fact that it never happened means that a) The gov't didn't do it, and b) AQ did it and the US used it as an opportunity to invade Iraq.

Just my .02

Good questions, bad conclusions. Why are we still friends with Saudi Arabia if 15 of the 19 alleged hi-jackers were from there? Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia if there's such evidence? Who came from where doesn't matter. What did matter was that they said Iraq had WMDs and that poses a terrorist threat to our country. The same argument is being made against Iran. (Cos we don't need the proof of WMDs to be a mushroom cloud do we?)

[edit on 10/21/07 by Angry Danish]