Alternative motives of a 9/11 conspiracy.

Perhaps it was never the government that conspired to bring down the towers, but perhaps it was Larry Silverstein? perhaps he came to the knowledge of imminent attack on the WTC so he leased the towers and planted demolition charges so he could take the building down when the terrorists attacked? the motives would be money on his part.

As for the pentagon strike, this could've been a planned terrorist target too and was allowed to happen by the government to allow for a war since the military was directly attacked?

No matter how I turn it, I can't seem to find a way to accept the official story due to many holes in it and unfortunatly will end up in being more a conspiracy theory it self.

I want to believe the official story to be true but I CAN'T! I keep running into a brick wall and leads me to conclude that my above theory MUST be flawed when applying occam's razor, the simplest explenation being the most likely.

19 Hijackers with boxcutters? I wonder...

I hear you -

It's ridiculous when the media comes out with stories about why people believe the various 911 conspiracy theories - And they say its because we want to believe them. Nothing could be farther from the truth for me.

I remember before I really started to question the official version, I respected the right for all of the people who had questions about it, but I saw the planes crash - I knew that was real.

I even watched some videos about it and they raised some good points, but I still wasn't convinced.

For me, it wasn't until a friend of mine who is a structural engineer said no way could those things fall at free fall speed and also I remembered seeing the molten steel on TV. How come now the commission was now saying the molten steel didn't exist?

It just started to come more and more into focus and then finally WTC7 - and the BBC's premature report. That was the icing on the cake.

It was a horrible terrifying realization. It was like experiencing the trauma of 911 all over again x 100. The very people who were supposed to be protecting us and could of saved us were the ones who did this??? It was a helpless - too much to handle feeling.

I still look at all the evidence and a part of me still searches for a way to believe the official story but they do nothing to help convince people like me. They don't release a picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon. They don't explain how building 7 fell. They don't care about finding Osama Bin Ladin. They don't care about who sent the Anthrax letters. It just doesn't make any sense. I wish our government's actions matched their convictions. It would certainly make them seem less guilty.


[edit on 2-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

I wonder if the official story had intentional holes in it for some reason, how would they benefit from us finding out about an inside job? a show of power perhaps? 'look at what we did, what you going to do about it?' kind of thing?

I dont think that most people believe that the govenment knows about this and is covering it up, i dont think most people in the govenment would believe it themselves. The only person i can see in the govenment aware of it was cheyney, and possibly rumsfeld, but the other people would be from intelligence agencies and the military industrial complex, not necissarily the govenment. There needn't be more than a hundred people aware of what was going to happen to pull it off sucessfully i would think.

Here's another alternative motive. Dov Zakheim, a dual US-Israeli citizen was the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time. Donald Rumsfeld, a former Bush 41 spook, was the secretary of defense at the time. Did these two guys stage the Pentagon attack to cover up a massive financial scandal?

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

web.archive.org...://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,325985-412,00.shtml

Normally, this would have made the front page and the news headlines the very next day. However, Rumsfeld's admission of missing trillions was made the day before the attacks. After the explosions at the WTC and Pentagon, there would be no time for reporting on some silly financial loss.

Still, DOD people would be assigned to look into it. There would be an investigation. Well, there would have been, but the Pentagon attack made this missing money un-traceable:

"The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area."

-Arlington County After-Action Report

So this budget information was destroyed.. How convenient. If that wasn't enough to destroy any hopes of investigating the missing money..

"Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck." - South Coast Today/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (12/20/01)

Now, when Rummy announced that the $2.3 trillion, I suspect that he had already planned the firing of a missile into that area of the Pentagon. He knew that the Pentagon attack would help him cover up this massive financial problem. But what about the man in charge of the accountants that would be incinerated? He wouldn't be incinerated. What to do?

Well, it helps when the man in charge of the Pentagon money is Dov Zakheim, who is also in on this conspiracy. He helped write PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" report and he formerly was the VP of System Planning Corp., which 'aided' the investigations of Virginia Tech and Columbine. It also provides remote control technology for aircraft.

So, were Donald Rumsfeld and Dov Zakheim plotting to cover up a massive financial screwup by firing a missile from the Pentagon's defense system and then covering it up as part of the WTC-Shanksville op? Or perhaps the missing trillions were used to pay for 9/11..

So, learned financial guru, lets discuss the 2.3 trillion shall we?

September 10, 2001, is twenty days from the end of the fiscal year. NOW, the budget for the fiscal year, is normally decided prior to the year that its for. In other words, FY2001's defense budget was planned during FY2000 (in other words, during the previous administration....and not with Rumsfeld as SofD). Of course, then comes the argument that the money was actually spent during the last three months of Clinton's term, first eight months of Bush's term. So what was the federal budget for FY2001...not just the defense budget...but the WHOLE federal budget.......(drum roll please) just over 1.8 trillion dollars. Bit of a problem there......for the Bush "crime" cabal to have stolen 2.3 trillion dollars as seems to be alleged in this thread.....they would have had to steal the ENTIRE BUDGET for the year (plus half a trillion dollars from somewhere else)

In other words, for this insane theory to have any speck of reality, it means that NO department of the federal government would have had any money to spend that year. No SS checks, no federal services...NOTHING.

What Rumsfeld was discussing was over FORTY YEARS of issues at the Pentagon and how it accounted for funds/equipment....not that someone woke up and discovered 2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon piggy bank.

It was 19 terrorists... Hello? Did you hear of OBL?? These people were evil and part of a wider organization supported by the Afgan government.

Originally posted by mossad99
It was 19 terrorists... Hello? Did you hear of OBL?? These people were evil and part of a wider organization supported by the Afgan government.

Is that from evidence you have or just from what you have been told?

Funny how after more then 6 years there is still very little actual evidence released that supports the official story.

Originally posted by mossad99
It was 19 terrorists... Hello? Did you hear of OBL?? These people were evil and part of a wider organization supported by the Afgan government.

Seriously, is this a joke post?

I see your pseudo is "mossad99" and you have 52 ATS points. You tout the official story in its most primitive terms. I just took the post as sarcasm, but maybe you're serious. Hard to tell.

As a US Army soldier I would love to believe it was 19 hi-jackers with box-cutters but unfortunatly the evidence speaks against this.

I would also love to believe we are actually in Iraq for a reason in interest of US national security, frankly I don't care about Israel, they can fend for them selves.