Why 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

Because there wasn't any? Miss Rice taking her turn at the table next to Powell saying don't let this turn into a mushrooom cloud. LOL, cow cookies.

Originally posted by mdzialo
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.

You're right on the money here. The lack of MSM coverage is often cited as proof that 9/11 was not an inside job, by none other that Bill O'Reilly. Take that as you will.

Originally posted by robert z
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?

I don't think they had enough time to plan and execute in that short amount of time.

PS: Hey dg, you're looking quite sexy these days!

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

Rumsfeld has already been forced to give back money over that very issue, so yeah.

MY THING ON 9/11

......I'm interested in a military (Air Force) investigating body, especially appointed by the United States government, announcing the planes would have to have been remote controlled in order to do what they did....

You could use the internet to read the obituary of, and other web mentionings of, the death of Joseph P. Kennedy, father of.....guess who.
Joe Kennedy died with another pilot on a Liberator plane mostly intended to be put on collision course, it itself was intended to a missile for 1944 WWII purposes. Joe Kennedy had generally been in a sector experimenting with putting entire planes on collision course then parachuting out.
I always think it's odd that that exact locale of the explosion was over Sizewell B, future site for one of Britain's early nuclear power stations, except that exactly 40 years later, arguably Britain's most mysterious death occurred, the death of Hilda Murrell. Google her name to find an account of that.
From Martin Heth, www.phonedupnshutup.com & surf.to/dangerousdave

Have done a few interesting posts onto a thread you'll find in ATS, via "22 mysterious deaths".

Why pull it off?

Why? Quite. Remind me how you found ATS in the first place?
It's obvious the government has plans for the middle east. What it is, I don't know. But what is sure is that their pretextes for Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran, and totally baseless. The propanda is so obvious it's not funny anymore.

First, it was the ridiculous pursuit of Bin Laden, as a comeback for 9/11. It looked like a bad parody, with the little videos with a different Bin everytime, and the troops "looking" for Bin. Like they're going to make me believe all that time they were just "looking" for Bin Laden. For Christ's sake, they bombarded the country, and then they have the nerve to call "terrorists" the people who defended their country! Your a Afghan man, and you know the United-States is coming to attack your country, what do you do? You take a gun and protect it >__>

Then it was Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, which they never found. "We are certain there are weapons of mass destruction!" -> "It is possible that there are weapons of mass destruction!". "There were no weapons of mass destruction". "Then after that, they were all like "Oh no, we never said there were any...", The sheeple fell for it, good god. ;__;

Now it's Iran and their nuclear weapons, which they don't even have proof they have "Quick let's attack them before they attack us!". For starters, Iran could say "Omg the USA has nuclear weapons and they plan on attacking us! Let's attack first!". That's such a stupid pretext for a war, and people fall for it. Then the Americans get all offended when people call them stupid

And between all that, the American government exploited the fear they created in the American public to gain control and violate the citizens' vital rights. This is probably the main purpose of 9/11, apart from the wars, which were probably made for hefty profits.

I have some questions.

If this wasn't an inside job, how were the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 20 something minutes before it fell? Were they reading a script?

Why did the F.B.I conviscate the tapes from the hotel and gas station when the Pentagon was hit, also why did it take them 5 years to release the few frames of footage?

Are the firemen that said it looked like a controlled demolition liars?, after all they were there right in the thick of it.

Why were no planes scrambled for intercept? The US military and the american government are very close these days.

Everything about 9/11 doesn't feel right.

Thanks for spotting the error Ultima1 my bad

[edit on 21-10-2007 by Reaver1979]

[edit on 21-10-2007 by Reaver1979]

Originally posted by Reaver1979
I have some questions.

If this wasn't an inside job, how were the BBC reporting the collapse of the towers 20 something minutes before they fell? Were they reading a script?

You need to get your information correct. It was building 7 that the BBC and CNN reported collapsing live before it collapsed.

America hasn't been involved in any major wars since the Cold War. Winning that war proved to the world that the US was the dominant super power. But it's been years since something of that magnitude has occurred.

America needs to show the world that they still are the prominent power of the world. The US has to win multiple theater wars to retain there image and stance. These two wars could possibly be Afghanistan and Iraq (which don't seem to be going to well). Winning one war isn't much for the US, the world expects that from them, winning simultaneous wars on the other hand would prove more so that the US is powerful, yet that's not happening.

This is all according to the article Rebuilding America's Defenses and PNAC, but I assume they underestimated there chances.


[edit on 21-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

The OP is either lazy, and or ignorant, or a dis-info troll. Can you get more naive? Pic up something every now and then and read, how about that.

Maybe the OP is just young ad grossly un-informed, in which case, disregard the above lines.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Unplugged]

reply to post by jsobecky


I have a more difficult time believing the government cares about anyone of us, rather than "Why?" they would perpetrate such attacks.

History repeats itself.

U.S.S. Maine, anyone?



Also, I would like to make it abundantly clear that I'm not defending any one theory.

reply to post by Unplugged

I'm not implying anything about the OP but what you said brought something similar to my mind.

I wonder if the government monitors these threads with a view to refining their story. The so called "official story" has been massaged continuously since this whole horror started on 911.

I wonder if after a suitable interval, the government will come out with it's omnibus edition of the official story, (encyclopedia sized) refuting all the myriad of accusations made against them in these forums.

Here's an example:

In the bunker, the Vice President is being harassed by an overly concerned aide who keeps telling him things like, "the plane is 20 miles out, the plane is 15 miles out, the plane iis 10 miles out. Do the orders still stand?"

In the "Official Story Omnibus Edition" this will be explained as the perfectly innocuous incident that it was.

The Vice President's response "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" as reported by Representative Norman Mineta, will be amplified to tell the parts of the story that Mineta left out, where Cheney gets up from his chair, takes the aide out of earshot and says:

"Listen you jackass, the orders were; four cups of coffee, three black and one with cream and sugar and two Danishes. Now get the f*** on it, you're embarrassing me in front of the congressman, you meathead!"

In the meantime the congressman's entire family will receive anthrax laden invitations to visit their local morgue for free autopsies, just in case he starts objecting to the story in the omnibus edition.

I really think that there is just too much evidence out there to believe it was a "terrorist" attack.....oh wait...the unibomber was american so i guess we can call it a terrorist attack . But seriosuly people...get off your ass and research...thats the part that kills me...the evidence is all out there...and some of it is so blatant its almost painful...seriously

[edit on 24-10-2007 by SilentBob86]

You can read the governments oil plan that where wrote before 911. It talks of oil lines throughout the middle east.

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.



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

Paint the outlandish picture to get your pointout, please not not all CT's go down the roads of holgrams etc.

There is a lot more to this than Iraq, we aer talking Gas and Oil pipelines to get it transported at the lowest cost.

All your pointed questions lack serious credibility when one stands back and looks at the big big picture unfolding, Please go read a book called " Crossing the Rubicon" any good torrent should see you right. then come back to the land of the living

reply to post by jsobecky


You have asked a lot of good questions. You are a perfect example of the kind of person the 9/11 conspiracy theorists hate. Sorry but it's true You see, you are asking questions that they don't want to answer because they cannot except to put one more hypothetical twist into their ideas. I bet next you're going to start asking the conspiracy people to use real evidence to support their statements.

For the conspiracy to be real, there must be many, many individuals involved , none of whom have ever talked, and whom are among the smartest people in existence and also the most stupid.

The hologram idea and the super big laser beam idea is amongst my personal favorites

Originally posted by Meatclown
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).

Actually the designed to fail part agrees somewhat with my answer tothe OP. The Powers that Be had many plans for exploiting 9/11 - and if they did it themselves they might want to plant clues pointing towards those goals. But They couldn't implicate everyone and everything in that single event, so some later manipulation would be required to swing 9/11's 'political capital' behind, say, the Patriot Act (that took the Anthrax scare as well) or democracy promotion in the former USSR (the "War on Terror" growing a sub-war for 'freedom' all over).

So the Iraq war might've been meant as a test run for doing this, connecting a clearly unrealted issue. So the obvious distortions discredit the Bush regime, which will get its maximum eight years anyway, so no net loss for the master script - let him go out at zero approval ratings they say, the ball is rolling...

Originally posted by Meatclown
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).

And there it is...religion gets dragged into it End times...Prophecy... etc....

If it's prophecy, it will happen so there is no need to "stir up trouble". It will happen all on it's own without participation from an imaginary super secret agencies.

The last part is the worst of the logic.

Bush is purposely acting like a moron and doing everything wrong so they can better control who comes in to replace him (Hillary Clinton)

How will "they" be able to control someone else more because of Bush's screw ups? That makes no sense.

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?

Is this a serious question, or just rhetoric?

If a handful of rogue, criminal Americans in no way connected to the government committed a crime in some other part of the world, would you seriously expect the USA to be invaded as a consequence?

Why did the F.B.I conviscate the tapes from the hotel and gas station when the Pentagon was hit, also why did it take them 5 years to release the few frames of footage?

Don't mean to pour cold water on the CT, but for the sake of accuracy it has to be said that it would be SOP with every police force anywhere in the world to collect this kind of possible evidence immediately following a major crime. Don't know why it took so long to 'release' these videos, but it's probably something mundane like they didn't show anything interesting or significant, there were more important issues to deal with and because this was of no consequence it was forgotten about. Sometimes the explanation really is mundane, like it or not.

Are the firemen that said it looked like a controlled demolition liars?, after all they were there right in the thick of it.

Which firemen? I never heard or read that. Do you have names? That would be interesting, even if it is just an opinion expressed by one in a hundred.

Why were no planes scrambled for intercept? The US military and the american government are very close these days

This truth-seeker suspects confusion and incompetence, but there may be a more sinister explanation. I have never seen any evidence of that though. If you have any, please share it.

Everything about 9/11 doesn't feel right.

Well to you it may. I couldn't agree that everything doesn't feel right, as it pretty much follows the Al Qaida modus operandi of trained suicide operatives using vehicles/buses/planes/other methods to bomb civilian targets, which has been done worldwide for the past 15 yrs or so (including here in London in 2005, where the bombers were actually Brits). But there are a couple of odd things about 9/11. This seeker remains open-minded. I am not convinced it was an 'inside job' because the evidence is just not there. But people believe what they want to believe, regardless of evidence.