9/11 Conspiracy theorists...

You can argue I have an emotional attachment all you want. I also have a perspective almost no on the boards has.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Thanks, but I still don't buy it. I know that most theorists think that the government destroyed the buildings to invade Iraq with the intentions of getting Saddam, but think about it, theres so many other ways they could have done it without killing so many innocent people.

Oh? Do tell what would have given us the kick in the pants to go invade Afghanistan, and enough momentum to push us as far as invading Iraq?

I would love to see this.

And BTW... I really think you don't understand how like ants the lives of the average humans are to the likes of Cheney, Rove and a long list of others.

3000 lives is a drop in the bucket, when they push to kill millions.

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
I cant answer that one. No one can, you cant just call everything a conspiracy. Just because there was more that could have been done and wasnt only means that the president was neglectful and stupid, still doesnt add up to conspiracy.

But when fact after fact after fact comes out that, alone is odd but not alarming in and of itself, yet when taken as a whole, the probability of the Official Conspiracy Theory being true is nearly infinitely small, and the probability that it was planned and executed internally is a near given... Why would one cling to the Official Conspiracy Theory?

Originally posted by BloodRedSky

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
The events which have transpired since have benefited nobody other than the American War Machine.

Yes, war equals money for the government. But there still isnt any adequate answers to make me believe the government was up to this. Thats just my opinion, Im not attacking anyone, just expressing my views.

No... War equals money for the War Suppliers. The Government gets to pay for the supplies from places like Cheney's Haliburton, borrowing money at unheard of rates from the Fedreral Reserve (a private corporation) at interest, requiring the government to hand Wall Street over to the Federal Reserve (a private corporation), effectively giving the American people to the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) as indentured slaves - and daily they increase the debt we must pay off, giving more borrowed funds to the War Suppliers.

Clearly you are not as aware of how the Universe operates as you seem to think.

reply to post by BloodRedSky


I completely agree, it were the pentagon taliban and the AlCIAda.



We are living in a free western world, and so everybody is allowed to have an own opinion about everything.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by qwertz]

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
This would all be more credible to me if you all could agree on just one theory...But yes, I know our government is capable of horrendous acts, it just doesnt seem like the smartest route to start a war, there are so many other options than blowing down the Twin Towers.

Well, interesting story there... The Towers had been slated to be deconstructed by 2007, with a scaffold costing 15 million - because implosion was too dangerous. (The combination of aluminum and steel had created a catalystic corrosion, weakening the structure - at the ground level, which is interestingly the area that faired best in the demolition of the Towers.)

So, hey! Insure the suckers to the hilt for acts of terror, create the terror act, collect the insurance, and don't pay to scaffold the buildings and deconstruct them.

Oh, and meanwhile, take out #7, eliminating Enron evidence and other damning evidence too! How convenient.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Okay, but considering this wasn't a crash, i.e. the assumption being it was intentionally flown in to an object and the "crash" wasn't a result of mechanical failure, do you think it has been handled differently?
I imagine that the NTSB's investigation of plane crashes focuses on answering the question "why"....well, the why is known, so maybe they focused on "what" or "how" resulting in a more unorthodox investigation. Possible, no?

[edit on 10-8-2008 by White Chapel]

Originally posted by White Chapel
Okay, but considering this wasn't a crash, i.e. the assumption being it was intentionally flown in to an object and the "crash" wasn't a result of mechanical failure, do you think it has been handled differently?

But the main point being that they are still crime scenes, and have to be handled as such. That means a full investigation.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by White Chapel
Okay, but considering this wasn't a crash, i.e. the assumption being it was intentionally flown in to an object and the "crash" wasn't a result of mechanical failure, do you think it has been handled differently?

But the main point being that they are still crime scenes, and have to be handled as such. That means a full investigation.

I don't know if that's correct, this was a unique event that might have been handled differently, with no diabolical scheme as the reason for the difference, just the fact that it is a different type of accident than they normally investigate.

Originally posted by White Chapel
I don't know if that's correct, this was a unique event that might have been handled differently, with no diabolical scheme as the reason for the difference, just the fact that it is a different type of accident than they normally investigate.

Well the FBI investigated the Pentagon as a crime scene. But for 5 days after stating it would take 30 days.

www.defenselink.mil...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2001 -- The FBI assumed crime-scene jurisdiction at the Pentagon terrorist attack site Sept. 21 from the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department, officials said.

FBI officials estimate the crime scene investigation would last about a month, Arlington Fire Chief Edward P. Plaugher said. He said he expects "additional remains will be discovered during the course of the FBI investigation" and mortuary specialists will remain on site to process them.



WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2001 -- The FBI handed over Pentagon crash site management to the Army Military District of Washington at 7 a.m. today.

The transfer of responsibility marks the end of the FBI's crime scene investigation following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the Pentagon. MDW will oversee ongoing security operations around the damaged area of the building. FBI investigators will move their operations to the Pentagon's north parking lot and continue to sift through debris for more evidence.

Originally posted by White Chapel
I don't know if that's correct, this was a unique event that might have been handled differently, with no diabolical scheme as the reason for the difference, just the fact that it is a different type of accident than they normally investigate.

I'm with ULTIMA1 on this. "Unique" or not, it was an aviation crime scene. Hijackings ARE aviation crimes.

But efforts to do forensics were thwarted that day, and all that was really gotten was a small bunch of hand-picked "evidence" that was handed over to the forensics team. That alone was weird.

Just another in the very long list of weird things that happened.

But we had some pretty reliable information about hijackings.

Why weren't the airports put on higher security?

Reliable in what manner? To stop an attack must know 3 things

Timing - When is attack supposed to happen? Window of 48 hrs, 72 on outside. Trying to keep up vigilance beyond then is difficult. Also word
gets out. The extra security is expensive and disruptive so cant keep
it up for very long.

Target - What is to be hit. There was no mention of WTC or Pentagon
as targets beyond the 1993 bombing. Some of the more perceptive
could consider WTC as targets (Rick Rescorla who worked hard to
drill everyone to evacuate quickly). 6 months before 9/11 (Mar 2001)
took class in WMD Operations at fire academy - instructor mentioned
WTC as possible target. But there are thousands of other targets and
can't protect all of them.

Type of attack - How is attack to be carried out. The briefing of Aug 6
mentioned possible bombing at Federal building(s) and hijacking. No
mention of hijacked aircraft as weapon to be slammed into buildings.
Unless know how attack is planned at severe disadvantage in how to
deploy resources. Cant be everwhere at once.

Improve airport security - Ok what do you look for? Pull over every
"Mid Eastern looking type" for 3rd degree. ACLU and every other civil
liberty nut would go crazy claiming "Bush is fascist". As seen extra
security is very disruptive - people and business impacted begin to
complain very loudly.

Originally posted by thedman

But we had some pretty reliable information about hijackings.

Why weren't the airports put on higher security?

Reliable in what manner? To stop an attack must know 3 things

All you really need to know is which 'Urban Moving Systems' vans the Dancing Israelis were driving (you know, the ones packed with "tons of explosives") that led to their arrest on 9/11, and after being released, saying on Israeli TV that they were sent to "document the event."

It would also be nice to know which Israeli-owned pager company (Odigo) was sending out advance warnings to stay away from the WTC towers during the early morning of 9/11. Also, which former CIA Executive Director had placed uncollected put options on UA and AA stock and which politicians and Defense Department officials were warned not to fly on 9/11.




[edit on 10-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by BloodRedSky


Exactly how much research did you do to come to this conclusion?

You will find that this is the wrong place for half-baked conclusions about subjects you have no clue about.

OH MY Gods!!!

Another 9/11 thread, and this time the OP gets beaten up by the usual suspects.

Sitting this one out, until or unless I see something that is actually intelligent.

reply to post by BloodRedSky


No one involved in such a plan or cover up would ever go back and admit to it, ever. But there is a way to test the various theories. Construct a model, to scale, with relative heat tolerance materials and test. If the tests are even close to the outcome we have witnessed, then it happened as we saw it, if the results vary too greatly, it was staged, enough said?

It is easy to have our emotions rule us in these matters and I for one do not trust my emotions any more than I trust our government.

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Thanks, but I still don't buy it. I know that most theorists think that the government destroyed the buildings to invade Iraq with the intentions of getting Saddam, but think about it, theres so many other ways they could have done it without killing so many innocent people.

Nope.

False Flag operations have always been the best way to sway public opinion. Our world leaders do not care about "innocent lives". If they did, there would be no war.

You are only a pawn, nothing more and a whole lot less.

If Americans believed that men from another Country attacked us, then the spark of blind patriotism is ignited much easier.

And you admit that you have seen the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job and your not "buying it"? Is that a form of self inflicted ignorance?

Originally posted by thedman
Reliable in what manner? To stop an attack must know 3 things

No, you do not need to know those things just to put airports on higher security.

We had plenty of information that there were going to be hijackings so why not take a simple precaution like putting the airports on higher security?

We had plenty of good information that should have been heeded.

Originally posted by BloodRedSky

Originally posted by silent thunder

This would all be more credible to me if you all could agree on just one theory...But yes, I know our government is capable of horrendous acts, it just doesnt seem like the smartest route to start a war, there are so many other options than blowing down the Twin Towers.

That depends on the motives.

You are seriously forgetting that gathered Intelligence in any industrialized Nation is highly compartmentalized. We as a people do not fully understand their motives behind blowing up the twin towers...or do we?

Since 9/11 they have threw around the terrorist propaganda to add as much fear to the American population as possible. Then the Americans in their fear demand that the government protect them, so now we have legislation being passed that is ripping our Constitution to pieces.

Indeed we are trading in our freedoms for security and the Bush Administration is pushing it harder than anyone.

The only motive behind attacking your own people is to instill fear in them of a foreign threat so that you can build the dictatorship you've always wanted.

False Flag Operations worked brilliantly for Hitler to build the Third Reich and that is exactly what our government is doing now.