Ok, If 9/11 was 30 years in the making,

and it was this massive web of lies, deceit, and connections, I just have one question that I can't answer.



























Why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? That would have justified the war and made a lot less people question the motives of why we invaded. I can't think of a decent reason to not plant them. Thoughts?

reply to post by careface


WMDs were the medias golden ticket to sway everyone toward a liberal agenda.

Think about it for a minute. In 1990 there were these things called SCUD missiles. Did they shoot all they had? They used chemical weapons on their own people in the north years before the war. Did they use all they had?
The weapons inspectors had to give two weeks notice before visiting any site. Is there any chance that if there were any WMDs at these sites, they were moved? Is there any chance that they were moved to Pakistan or another neighboring country when things got real hot?

I will agree that the war was sold to the public on completely false pretenses, and most likely we shouldn't have even been there, but what is done is done. Sadly, even if the American people would have opposed the war by majority, the people in charge will do whatever they want and completely disregard the citizens. For clarification, see- Bailout.

Interesting thought....

Although if they did it would of looked odd considering there were no sites found to produce them anyway

Although if off the black market, if from a supposed terrorist cell would fuel the fire more! And also further allow people to talk about this and further disolve the truth

But I think if they did it would of meant further lies from the original lie of WMD's if they had found them then someone would have to be accountable for them, and for all the sites to plant effectively enough WMD's instead of just say 3 or 4 at a few sites wouldn't cut the mustard the get across that the entire country had WMD's since they had no facilities to produce them.

If they were found I would assume eventually through various investigation to things that don't add up on the ground it would of been worse for the ideology because you can't just blame it on "dodgy military intelligence" then, it would be harder to ward off the reasons of why they would be there.

Maybe you should go work for them and point out as a consultant holes which they left which could further their goals and protrayal of events etc learn all you can and come post back on here your findings!

Regards,

Panda

reply to post by careface


It's not so easy to plant WMDs, as most of them are traceable. Not to mention that you would have to pry them from their chain of control. I have thought about this before and came to the conclusion that there must not be any black-market nukes, at least that TPTB know about because if there were, it would have been planted. However, to take one from our own inventory would only point back to the US. This is true whether it be bio, chem or nuclear. All have distinctive fingerprints that would be like a big lighted arrow, pointed back the US government. Sure, you could easily cover that up here in the States, however you couldn't so easily cover it up with the rest of the world, to include the UN and/or IAEA.

--airspoon

reply to post by bluepanda
if you had a let say a meth lab and knew for 2 weeks the leo was coming would you not get ride of all the lab, or make it look like you are making insecticide. get real people this is not over we will be back in Iraq, and this next time we will know what true war is.

reply to post by careface


Good point...I can only think that "good" factions in the U.S., British and Israeli secret security forces prevented the "bad" ones from planting anything...

I remember at the time a bogus story about Iraq trying to obtain "yellowcake" uranium was debunked in the mainstream media. Perhaps that was to be part of some planted evidence thing..?

The Niger uranium forgeries are forged documents initially revealed by Italian Military intelligence. These documents purport to depict an attempt by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium powder from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of the United Nations Iraq sanctions.

And it has been speculated that an aircraft that was making an unauthorised flight across the United States with six nuclear bombs on board that was stopped by the U.S. military in 2007 was on its way to the Middle East:

Wednesday’s revelation that a US Air Force B-52 bomber flew over the length of the United States armed with six cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads has attracted amazingly little media attention.

The story, first broken by the Military Times web site based on tips from military officers, was relegated to the bottom of page 16 in Thursday’s New York Times and to page 10 of the Washington Post.

Featured prominently in both newspapers and generally in media coverage were reassurances from a spokesman for the Air Force that it represented “an isolated mistake” and that “at no time was there a threat to public safety.”

This incident, however, has immense and ominous significance. Describing it as an “isolated mistake” begs the obvious questions of how a nuclear-armed B-52 was allowed to become airborne—ostensibly without the approval of senior officials—and who ordered this extraordinary flight, and why.

So perhaps tussles between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" go on all the time behind the scenes..?

reply to post by careface


I often wondered the same thing but to tell you the truth, I don't think the invasion of Iraq was part of the original objective. I think the overall objective of 9/11 was to draw America into the Middle East for two primary reasons.

First, I believe that it was the intention of the Israeli Mossad, who I believe was responsible for 9/11, to draw America into the Middle East to fight Israel's war with the Muslims. I really think that the Israelis intended for us to retaliate against Saudi Arabia but who knows?

Second, I believe that the Bush administration allowed the attacks to occur because they needed an excuse to utilize the american military to secure Middle East oil fields for american corporations.

I don't want to say that the invasion of Iraq was an afterthought because I know that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were unhappy with the outcome of the first Iraqi invasion and they were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq again, not to mention the fact that Bush Jr. wanted revenge for the assassination attempt on his father. But you have to remember that these idiots thought that we would be greeted as liberators. They expected to have another quick victory with little or no casualties and probably assumed that we would be so wrapped up in the victory parade given to us by the Iraqis that we would no longer question the reason for entering the war. Or, maybe they would have used the festivities as a diversion while they planted the WMDs, who knows. What I do know is that the Iraq war turned out NOT to be the simple "cake walk" that they thought it would be.

During the 2008 elections, it became perfectly clear to most people, that the Bush administration and the republican party were totally ignorant of, and unprepared for, the new information age being provided by the people of the world via the internet. You can no longer just sweep the truth under the rug and I am confident that sooner or later, the truth regarding 9/11 will come out and America will be pissed, to say the least.

First off, the allegation that 9/11 was thirty years in the making and the invasion of Iraq are two separate issues. True, the neocon warhawks did take full advantage of the manufactured and manipulated anger of the American public after 9/11 to invade Iraq, however, the issue is a bit more complicated than just lumping the two together.

As a previous poster mentioned, why take the chances of having the planted weapons of mass destruction traced back to you when your objective had already been satisfied? The objective being to fool the brain dead American public into supporting a "war" the USA had no business in fighting. It is these same brain dead Americans who supported the war who ended up being impoverished by it. See how the game works?

Since they were in Iraq for the purpose of destabilizing the region with the blessings of the American people, why push their luck? Just blame the WMD story on lousy intelligence and move along. Most Americans have such a short attention span and an inability to retain information, that in no time they forgot why the USA even invaded Iraq.

Another reason for the Iraq invasion was to get rid of the large supply of weapons the USA had amassed during the Reagan administration's record setting peacetime buildup of these weapons. It is kind of difficult to ask Congress for more unnecessary deficit raising military spending when you have all these unused weapons sitting around on your shelf.

In summary, whether or not WMDs were located in Iraq, the result was the same: America and its average Joe got screwed while the big guys cashed in their chips and made a "killing". No need to take unnecessary risks by planting evidence on foreign soil when the results would end up being the same.

I remember watching a documentary on Sadam Hussein that interviewed CIA people on NATGEO.
They admit themselves that they didn't find any WMD's

channel.nationalgeographic.com...

Not sure if people on ATS watch the National Geography documentaries.

Because the world is going to turn against the US and israel like they did Germany after Hitler became unpopular.

Citizens will be paying for the damage done just as German citizens had to.

Just like Yahoo taking AE911 seriously today, the world outside of the US is already convinced 9/11 was in inside job and that it's an Oil War.

That was fuel to feed the fires, the US is not going to win in this game, it's going to fall like Rome due to debt and it will be written in future history books.

WTC weren't even built 30 years ago...

If you mean false flag terrorism was invented 30 years ago....no

If you mean the hatched the plan to invade the middle east 30 years ago? possible

Anyways, a plan drawn up 30 years ago would have no set building to destroy or anything so i dunno