The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

reply to post by twitchy


Well, that means that either you are barking up the wrong tree, or you have uncommon sense. I'm sorry, but most people, for all the talk, don't find that idea very likely. I had no intention to insult anyone, but simply stated a fact.

However, that idea will get a full airing with me as well. I refuse to dismiss out of hand any possibility, no matter how remote I might feel it is. But your favorite will have to meet the same criteria of proof and logic as any other. And just as any other, there can scarcely be much of the vague "they must have" and fairytale technology used to support a position.

Don't be insulted, be involved. If it turns out that what you think happened isn't what seems most likely, aren't you still interested in the truth? Does it have to be your way or it's wrong? Are you seeking the truth or convincing the world of your worth? These are the choices that separate out why people are really "truthers" or users.

This was good, but I think it misses one point - that the Muslim Brotherhood - the start of all this - was created by Hitler near the end of WWII. You need to link all this to the Nazi regime and those in the current US government that have close ties to the Nazi's. I think then you will start to get the whole true larger picture to come to light.

reply to post by kokuryu


Even if no link can be found, that's an interesting bit of knowledge.

Do you recommend some links on this?

I don't enjoy the implications you're making that anyone who thinks there might have been a SADM employed at the WTC lacks common sense. There is a wealth of evidence which could certainly be indicative of nuclear demolitions device, including elevated levels of tritium and rivers of molten steel weeks later in the debris that can only be acheived by temperatures found in a nuclear reaction, just to name a few.

What if you're the one barking up the wrong tree with the whole idea of Islamic Fundamentalism being the culprit, would you feel equally insulted if I said you lacked common sense for believing that? Are you avoiding the inside job angle on purpose because it seems to me that you're espousing the same story Uncle Sam is trying to hand us about box cutter weilding super pilots, stupified air defenses, the cave dwelling Osama Tim Osman Bin Laden Boogey Man, and building demolishing fires.
Common Sense indeed, thank god most folks have enough of it too see past that propaganda.

This is an ATS 'premium'?!? It's a subtle swipe at conspiracy theorists IMO.

Firstly to address twitchy, NGC hasn’t said Islamic terrorism was behind 9/11. He told a story, a piece of history, some background information about how Islamic terrorism came about with the *help* USG. This still leaves us with a lot of options for “what happened next”.

Some possible ideas are:
1. Al Qaeda attacked America without any help – the Official story
2. Al Qaeda is a front with links to the USG. They carried out the attacks together
3. The USG has enough links to Al Qaeda to have had knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing.
4. The USG carried out the attacks and *planted* evidence that it was Al Qaeda.
5. The attacks were not carried out by anyone in Al Qaeda or the USG. Anti-Semitists believe it was all the Jews (as they believe everything evil was carried out by them).
6. The attacks didn’t happen, I am the only person who exists, and you’re all a figment of my imagination, blah blah blah.

What we are looking for here is absolute truth. There is very little that we can know for absolute certain about the day itself. Therefore the more we know about the events before and after, the well documented military, economic, and relational history, the better our ground work for understanding the piecemeal information we have from the day itself.

I apologise for the emotional nature of what I say next, it is not evidence, but a point of view. To nunny and everyone else (mainly IRL) who tells me that the American government “would not” have carried out the 9/11 attacks because it’s simply too awful a thing to have done, I want to reply:

Everytime I hear those words, I believe more strongly that 9/11 was an inside job. Simply because the more people there are out there who “cannot possibly believe that such an evil thing could happen” the easier it was for them to do it and the less likely it was that “all good men” would stand together and speak the truth.

Economics can justify some terrible, terrible things. And I am quite certain that if the USG was behind it, it wasn’t because they are evil, it is just that they honestly believed it was in the best interests for them and their country. (This is BS, but did anyone else watch series 5 and 24 and feel certain someone was trying to get a message out there?)

Finally dk3000 said:
“The manipulations of war have little to do with 9/11- which was purely a financial decision which could also be milked for WAR value by support from an unsuspecting and terrified public.”

9/11 was the turning point. The day the US and the UK stood side by side as brothers and chose to make war with those who would threaten our freedom. The day in fact that the freedoms went away and the day that the real terrorists grew some balls, so to speak. Since that day terrorist attacks have become more and more frequent. The USG and media have farmed the fear unbelievably well to fuel patriotism for the war. I’m glad to be in the UK where this week Gordon Brown announced a tonne of anti-terrorist measures and half of us went “oh yeah... terrorists, I had forgotten about those”.

Again I sincerely apologise for the fact that half of this post is mainly opinion. But I’ll happily tell you why I care so damned much. Simply because I have been asked to work on anti-terrorist projects and I’d like to know who I’m really up against.

I hope over the next few weeks to read up on some of the economic arguments and present whatever truths I find. In the mean time, keep up the good work.

Originally posted by ErisDS
5. The attacks were not carried out by anyone in Al Qaeda or the USG. Anti-Semitists believe it was all the Jews (as they believe everything evil was carried out by them).

Would it be antisemitic to question the cheering and dancing Israelis with cash, cameras and box cutters who were given a free pass home no questions asked, later claiming that they were there to 'document the event'? Would it be antisemtic to bring up the fact that Mossad had knowledge of and quite literally followed these hijackers around prior to to 9-11 for years? Would it be antisemtic to mention the forewarnings received by Odigo employees before the attacks, the "Israeli Art students" who were casing military installations, or the five part special on Israeli espionage Fox News was running that was jerked off the air by the ADL right after 9-11?
Anytime I see the word antisemitic get thrown into 9-11 research, it makes me wonder if the term hasn't become something of a protection racket for zionists. Actually if we examine motives for 9-11, it would be pretty silly to leave them off the long list of suspects.

Edit:

Originally posted by ErisDS
Firstly to address twitchy, NGC hasn’t said Islamic terrorism was behind 9/11.

Odd that considering the title of this premium thread here is
"The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism"
It's great research, and more power to NGC, he's a great ATS'er, but it's the suggestion that a lack of common sense is behind the alternative theories, well that I take great exception to and gives this thread an unpleasant taste of spin.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by twitchy]

reply to post by twitchy


I am NOT saying any such thing. Like too many people you have an agenda, and you demand that everyone listen to you first; because you feel you're right and everyone else is wrong. But John Lear feels the same way, and the Anti-Semite groups, and the official story people, everyone feels they aren't being heard.

I said common sense, and you took that in it's narrowest meaning. The common sense attitude is that the official story is correct. I DO NOT think so myself. I am looking for the truth. But because you feel you have the truth, then I'm whitewashing things by not jumping on your bandwagon?

You can feel free to say what you like about my style of looking in a logical and detailed manner at ALL ideas here, but it certainly does nothing for your credibility to start accusing me of bias right off the bat. Is there something so lame about the theory that you espouse that it cannot be viewed on it's own merits?

You, and countless others, are the problem faced by those that would try to find the truth. So many are blinded by their own brilliance that they dare not accept that not everyone is so smitten. There can only be one truth, so there must be other ideas that don't show enough evidence to be credible. I don't yet know if your theory is strong enough to stand close scrutiny or not.

So please, take a deep breath and tell yourself that old NGC is not biased for or against ANY idea yet. So far, all I have done is tie Al Qeada to the CIA. Where evidence and logic lead after that, who knows? Maybe the CIA gave mini-nukes to the Zionist who then had the PTA of Burning Mattress, Montana highjack airliners disguised as Arabs, all of which were abducted by aliens while the the bombs were teleported to the WTC by Illuminatti adepts, and the NWO is just trying to cash in on it all.

But please, read and contribute what knowledge and understanding you have from your sources and data, and let us just compare, side by side, all the theories when we reach the point of looking at that day itself. Like a forensic investigator, we have to sift through all the evidence, and all the theories, to find that which is most likely to be true.

But for the record, if it were not already plain, I DO NOT think we have the truth with the official report. I am NOT out to make the governments case for them yet again. I truly think that where there's so much smoke, there must be a fire. But everybody can't be right, and no one is first among equals.

reply to post by OutShine

People have the right to do whatever they like, but if they do things that a whole lot of other people think is evil, that majority has a system in place to deal with the minority evildoers.

seems culturally bias to me...

However, your claim that it is authoritarian to outlaw the acts you mentioned is ridiculous. Certainly, popular support is accurately reflected in the laws regarding murder or assault, and theft.

harm to other living things is not criminal.. it's the result of mental illness... crimes are subjective cultural definitions imposed by those who have the will to control the acts of others, whether lobbiests or law makers...

I have no problem with your assertion that the entire planet is run by criminal gangs--I'd love to hear some details--but don't dismiss the alternate lines of inquiry.

as crime is defined as theft & murder and variations thereof.... dynastic families have ruled since the kings lists were handed down thousands of years ago... they control all the resources and determine our quality of life (food, money etc) ....governments are merely the front line of defense and justification for regimes to do as they please... duped into believing we have the ability to create our own fate, laws are enacted to deflect criticism away from the top... in context of the American/Islamic conflict, the US government and Windsor/Bush dynasty cloak themselves as saviors and protectors in order to justify the bankruptcy of it's people and the killing of rival dynastic powers... governments with the aid of armed forces are merely gangster pawns protecting the "king"... same as it ever was...

reply to post by never_tell


Would you care to expand on just how your insights have a bearing on the 9/11 idea? Are you, perchance, inferring that these "crime families" were behind 9/11?

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by never_tell

 

Would you care to expand on just how your insights have a bearing on the 9/11 idea? Are you, perchance, inferring that these "crime families" were behind 9/11?

absolutely... do i have proof? like everyone here, merely speculation but when you find out "old mr walkins was really the ghost haunting the theme park all along..."... scoobie doo!!!


all jokes aside, to imagine that it's not possible that it wasn't an inside job is ... well... not to belittle the lives lost, but just a small sample of the lives thrown to the wind in order to expand power and monopolize resourses around the world in the last 50 years... these people will do anything it takes to win... history has shown that, time and time again... nothing new here... hitler... nero.... spanish/american war... should i go on?

reply to post by never_tell


I do agree. The "Powers" of the world have never cared about the common good. America sought to change that, but then straightaway started their own aristocracy and class system.

But I'm more interested in any ideas you want to put in the pot as concerns the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by twitchy
What if you're the one barking up the wrong tree with the whole idea of Islamic Fundamentalism being the culprit, would you feel equally insulted if I said you lacked common sense for believing that?

Hey twitch...

[disclaimer: the following post is my opinion only, and in no way should be construed as official opinion or editorial direction of AboveTopSecret.com]

I'm not seeing the article in the same light.

I'll bet if I twisted your arm long enough, you'd agree there is a dangerously high level of "9/11 Truthers" (or conspiracy theorist in general) who latch onto to specific theories with specific details, then spend their time searching out supporting evidence and ignoring contradictory information.

If... and this is one of the great big giant "ifs" of our time... we're to gain any traction in establishing "9/11 is an inside job" will it really be through a dizzying array of sometimes conflicting minutiae that collectively describes a "forced demolition" scenario? After all this time, the only traction all of the videos, speeches, rallies, events, books, protests, and online chatter has produced is that of an irritated general public. (Ever talk to a "normal" about 9/11 truth?)

The problem we have is that, because of the "truth movement," 9/11 conspiracy speculation and research has followed the patterns of anti-establishment activism... where the majority of those involved (or at least the most vocal) compile ever-increasing lists of things to be angry about. The goal "feels" like it's geared toward increasing the number of angry people, rather than discovering the truth.

So maybe... just maybe... if nothing has "stuck" yet, maybe it's time to shift gears, change tactics, find another road, reshuffle the deck... or whatever other cliche fits.

If a refocused effort discovers cover-ups and foul play in the goings on of US-sponsored covert entities that trained, funding, and "aimed" the very enemy now blamed in the "war on terrorism," and we get broader and deeper investigations with real teeth... ... ... so? Objective achieved, right?

I had the distinct honor of sharing several pints of Guinness with of this era's greatest conspiracy researchers and writers, Jim Marrs. And yes, he has some interesting and surprisingly plausible ideas about the use of shaped nuclear devices, but he also said, " I don't want to be right about any of this." And neither do I. And neither should we all.

However, history teaches us we might be right. History also teaches us that previous conspiracies and cover-ups have deep historical roots. While there are a myriad of details related to the events in NYC and Washington that remain questionable, a deep and troubling conspiracy can still be uncovered without proving any of those details. Watergate was proven by following the money, Iran Contra was uncovered by following the money (profits of Florida-based drug runners getting paid to send weapons to Nicaragua), and 9/11 conspiracies will likely be proven in the same way.

So those who consider the possibilities of conspiracies within the events of 9/11 must expand their thinking into all areas... history as well as mysteries.

post by never_tell
"I do agree. The "Powers" of the world have never cared about the common good. America sought to change that, but then straightaway started their own aristocracy and class system.
But I'm more interested in any ideas you want to put in the pot as concerns the topic of this thread."



i'm not sure that I have anything new to add... it's a topic that has been research to death IMO... what I would say is that regimes with a sense of history would be quick to recognize the power of turning your 'enemy" into your "friends"... throughout history scapegoats have been utilized... in this case, Christians resurrect the "holy wars" in order to invade and protect their own kind.... stir the pot and have reason for police action.... Persians willing to die for their cause is nothing new.... they were some of the largest armies of the ancient world.... I heard a fantastical story once about heathens that needed "fixing".... off to Jerusalem went "God's Knights"to save the world...
.... did I fail to mention the "olive oil" and trade roots?

btw, I'm not sure America did try to change "that"... IMO it was just a shift in power... fueding cousins, that's all....

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

So those who consider the possibilities of conspiracies within the events of 9/11 must expand their thinking into all areas... history as well as mysteries.

I couldn't agree more. It's good to see the historical angle finally getting some traction here. The intense, agenda-driven and constant re-examination of the specific events of the day itself is becoming increasingly futile in my opinion.

Let's go back in time and look at Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, The Strategy of Tension, Operation Cyclone and even the CIA's suspected current use of al Qaeda-affiliated Jundullah for destabilising covert ops in Iran (see Operation Ajax) for precedent, method and to a certain extent, means. Let's look at the petrodollar and energy wars for motivation.

Once you have all the pieces of this historical jigsaw in place, you see 9/11 in a completely different light.

it's all about history... we don't think today's leaders just make this stuff up do we? if only they were that clever...would be a "different" world

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

reply to post by coughymachine


These are excellent links to put some historical context to what we are looking at. I recommend them to anyone interested in how some agencies and arms of our government operate.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel


If the CIA was really behind all this, they why did the Plame/Wilson Affair happen to try and discredit the Bush Administration?

Seems to me that Rove orchestrated the outing of Valerie Plame as revenge for Wilson exposing the yellowcake rouse. Did I miss something there? Perhaps that's why Rove is going to be "spending more time with family."

Anyway, fantastic thread OP. Starred, flagged and absolutely glued to the responses. I hope that we can stay on theme. I know a lot of people are passionate about their beliefs, but the historical context is, by far, the best starting point for coming to the truth. We shouldn't be distracted from honest research by emotional arguments.

The truth is out there, and in many cases it is in plain sight. To me, there is already enough solid evidence to warrant serious criminal investigations. We must keep pushing for the garbage corporate media and our lame representative government to pursue the leads.

Example? Keep writing your representatives and Nancy Pelosi to support HR 333, Kucinich's move for impeachment of Darth Cheney. There are legal ways to go about this and we are lazily ignoring them. I have been mailing letters every other day. If they get 10,000 then they may get the point. What if we could expose the bastards? It's worth a try. Here is some info to get your message across:

NOT MY QUOTE:

Nancy Pelosi said if she receives 10,000 handwritten letters she will put impeachment back on the table. Cindy Sheehan says if you send them in care of her campaign office the letters will be accurately counted.

The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
(The correct salutation is Dear Madam Speaker.)

Cindy for Congress
RE: Impeach Dick Cheney
1260 Mission Blvd
San Francisco, Ca 94103

----

It's worth a moment of your time. Bring it into the spotlight, folks.

Thanks



[edit on 16-11-2007 by flashback]

Originally posted by NGC2736
I am NOT saying any such thing. Like too many people you have an agenda, and you demand that everyone listen to you first; because you feel you're right and everyone else is wrong. You can feel free to say what you like about my style of looking in a logical and detailed manner at ALL ideas here, but it certainly does nothing for your credibility to start accusing me of bias right off the bat. ...You, and countless others, are the problem faced by those that would try to find the truth.

Then perhaps you can explain why you felt it was conduscive to your thread to open it saying...

Originally posted by NGC2736
mini-nukes are not taken seriously by those of us with common sense.

Yet you say I feel I'm right and and everyone else is wrong, how is that not hypocritical?
Look I'm totally on board with you about the subject matter, it's a great thread and it's something I have researched myself extensively. We've been regime changing and nation building over there since Barbary. I'm not detracting from the information you've provided here, honestly it's solid, informative stuff, but you need to leave the little 'common sense' swipes out of it if you want to be taken seriously by your contemporaries.
Why would you waste your considerable talents as a researcher by opening this otherwise thread with that kind of hit piece mentality towards alternative theories?
You retract that statement, and I'm with you 100% on this thread, but you go telling people they don't have common sense for following up on something besides Al-CIA-da's involvement, you're gonna have some credibility issues with me at least.
I appreciate your efforts, I really do, I have read and enjoyed many of your posts including this one, but I sure don't appreciate the implications you're making about your fellow researchers here at all. It's a great piece of thread here, don't ruin it.

Just so you know I'm not jerking your chain NGC, I've posted a similar thread myself two years before you even came to this site, you're preaching to the choir.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
So maybe... just maybe... if nothing has "stuck" yet, maybe it's time to shift gears, change tactics, find another road, reshuffle the deck... or whatever other cliche fits.

The reason I think nothing has 'stuck' is because the mainstream media, and anybody who could or would have the power to do something about it are considering it a cased closed, because of the Islamic Terrorism Label we were handed. The few that did try to do something about it ended up dropping dead, crashing their planes, having their families threatened, receiving anthrax, settled their lawsuits, took pay offs, or just got so wrung the ringers that their credibility was destroyed. If the 9-11 truth movement is stalling it is because of the complete lack of official anything. No investigations (commissions aren't investigations), no real suspects, no real indictments, no convictions, no real mainstream coverage, they cleaned up the crime scene, changed the names, and even Bush himself had the cajones to tell the american people that he wasn't even looking for Bin Laden anymore. It's not stalling due to lack of credible information or internal disagreements, it's stalling because there is no bite in the bark. We dont' have the legal teeth, or the organizational center to operate from to take the whole 9-11 issue to the table, let alone bring down those responsible. And they know it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I had the distinct honor of sharing several pints of Guinness with of this era's greatest conspiracy researchers and writers, Jim Marrs. And yes, he has some interesting and surprisingly plausible ideas about the use of shaped nuclear devices, but he also said, " I don't want to be right about any of this." And neither do I. And neither should we all.

Well according to the OP's opening then, Mr. Marrs simply lacks common sense, and that's my problem with this thread. My only problem with this thread really.
I bet that was an interesting conversation


[edit on 16-11-2007 by twitchy]

[disclaimer: the following post is my opinion only, and in no way should be construed as official opinion or editorial direction of AboveTopSecret.com]

Originally posted by twitchy
The reason I think nothing has 'stuck' is because the mainstream media, and anybody who could or would have the power to do something about it are considering it a cased closed, because of the Islamic Terrorism Label we were handed.

Here's where I know your assumption is incorrect. I've spoken with several reporters and mainstream media people... the issue is not a lack of interest or concern over potential conspiracy angles in the entire 9/11 story. The issue is a genuine concern that if they engage in "9/11 conspiracy or cover-up" research, they will be painted as "lunatic 9/11 truther anarchists" and immediately discredited and their career ruined. There are even those in the trenches of MSM who feel the angry fanaticism of the "truthers" has been shaped specifically to prevent journalists with credentials from digging into the issue "Watergate style."

Well according to the OP's opening then, Mr. Marrs simply lacks common sense, and that's my problem with this thread.

Actually... I tend to agree to some extent with a "lack of common sense." While it may be more exciting to speculate on exotic causes for specific oddities of the 9/11 events, discarding avenues of investigation that have proven success in the past does indeed lack common sense. Don't you think so?

Perhaps my tendency to focus on historical connections put the "common sense" comment in different context.

reply to post by twitchy


I have explained that one remark you find so offensive. Is that the problem? Does it bother you to be labeled "common"? Do you see yourself and your cause in such a light that equating yourself to the "common man" is somehow too low? We as humans use common sense all the time, even when it's wrong. Common sense tells us that a monster piece of metal weighing many tons simply cannot fly through the air like a dove. We have learned to overlook common sense at times, but that doesn't mean many of us don't still rely on it out of habit.

Common sense tells us that nukes are big and cumbersome and leave mushroom clouds. Most of us, operating on common sense (alone) think that the use of them on the WTC would have been much more spectacular. I try to start from the position of the "normal" person, and work from there.

OK, your theory requires some unconventional thinking, very unconventional thinking. But yet you want to be accepted as common, then it's fine by me. But if you're going to put forth an extremely unconventional idea, which in itself is UNCOMMON to the average person, the you must accept the label that goes with it.

I apologize for using terms that you took exception to. I hope that you will join in an effort to find the truth without further personality issues clouding the picture. If the truth is to be found, minor injuries to personalities being forefront in our considerations need to end. It is these kinds of derailing squabbles that detract from a united effort. It is these internal squabbles that keep any truth movement bound up and going nowhere.

Again, Twichy, you have my retraction if your feelings were hurt by my implying that you were without common sense. Such a minor point need not stand in front of us blocking out a search for answers. Please accept this as a way for us to move forward.