9/11 Discussion - MOTIVE

Originally posted by 4hero
If as some people claim, it was because the people of the middle east were angry then why go to such extremes to try and hijack 4 'planes'? Surely this is a very risky strategy that had lots of room to fail? Surely not all 4 sets of hijackers were capable of getting a load of box cutters past security?

The motive was financial and political, and to have been able to pull this off with such precision it would have needed some inside help. This had to be an inside job, if it wasn't then NIST would have been more thorough, and the investigation evidence would have been more open.

This attack conveniently gave TPTB a perfect motive to attack Iraq. If we are to believe everything the media presents to us then we are foolish.

It was both box-cutters and small knives, by the way. You might benefit from actually reading the Official Story.

reply to post by 4hero


Its called making a statement. A big bold one.

Figuring that out isn't exactly rocket science. Even if the towers didn't fall, the message was a clear one.

What is it about this subject that seems to stop people thinking?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is the trouble. The motive changes with who you think did it.

So if you disagree on the suspects then the motives become nonsense..

psik

If we can list motives then we can gather a list of suspects based on who has the most to gain from the motives. Once we have our suspects we can look to see what their involvement might have been and if we find incriminating evidence we can follow any lead they may provide to find others who may be involved.

Considering all feasible motives, who do you think has or will gain the most from the event? List motives and then suspects.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I am creating this thread here to dispel any misconceptions that you may have about the situation that happened on 9.11. The primary function of this thread is to determine the MOTIVE of the 9/11 attackers. Nothing else. This is a very very specific thread and deviation from the topic will result in immediate disqualification of your statements as irrelevant to the subject matter. This may become a multipart series on 9/11 brought you in part by ATS. Discuss why you think they attacked us

Feel free to start the topic of discussion.

If by "motive" you mean the motive of the hijackers, the problem is that noone really knows since they never left any messages behind explaining why they did it. Even Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 commission lamented they never found any domentable reason...BUT i personally think it was due to a combination of reasons. We know that Atta wrote a thesis in college explaining how he hated skyscrapers since they interrupted the traditional layout and travel routes of urban areas, and from his fellow students we know he had a beef with NYC since he thought it was the capital of international Jewish commerce. PLUS, we know from his foster family in Germany the guy was a religious fanatic. Add to the fact that the first WTC attack was staged by the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and KSM was also involved in the 9/11 attack, it could very well be a case that Atta was looking for a way to attack NYC and earn his 70 virgins and KSM was looking for someone to help him finish the job they started in 1993, and they simply had the random luck of meeting up with each other.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to the motives of the "inside job" conspiracy, then it's a sinister secret plot to take over the world. Everything from the 9/11 attack to some native in Borneo falling off a cliff while hunting pigs in the jungle is always a sinister secret plot to take over the world with the conspiracy theorists. Of course, the conspiracy theorists can never agree among themselves on the actual details of the sinister secret plot to take over the world, (I.E. whether it was hidden controlled demolitions or lasers from outer space) but as long as it's still a sinister secret plot to take over the world they'll worry about filling in the blanks later.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The first paragraph of your post is your conspiracy theory.
The second paragraph of your post is you berating conspiracy theorist.

Do you see the irony in that?

I like your specific thread.
So I'll do the same.

Motive? Money.

Dick Cheney through KBR,
Halliburton and policed by Black Water,
made the most money of anyone by far.
Really Far. No one else came close.

The government contracts we Americans
paid him for were astronomical.

911= Dick Cheney and Black Water

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

The first paragraph of your post is your conspiracy theory.
The second paragraph of your post is you berating conspiracy theorist.

Do you see the irony in that?

How do you figure? There is enough of a trail of evidence connecting Atta's radical beliefs to his connections to Al Qaida to his preparations in flight training to actually being aboard the hijacked planes to simply dismiss his involvement as a theory. Besides, basing conjecture on the known facts is a far sight different that creating the conjecture first and then manufacturing the facts to conform to the conjecture.

Mohammed Atta was kicked out of his house in Germany by the family he was living with as he was becoming hostile toward their daughter because she was an unwed mother. It is therefore conjecture to speculate he had religious agendas that blinded him to the welfare of others. On the other hand, accusing NYC fire fighters of being disinformation agents because they reported out of control fires were damaging WTC 7 is a conspiracy theory because it's making things up to avoid having to admit these "inside job" claims are false.

See the difference?

Originally posted by sealing
I like your specific thread.
So I'll do the same.

Motive? Money.

Dick Cheney through KBR,
Halliburton and policed by Black Water,
made the most money of anyone by far.
Really Far. No one else came close.

The government contracts we Americans
paid him for were astronomical.

911= Dick Cheney and Black Water

So Dick Cheney, a very wealthy man, not in the first flush of youth and with a long-standing and serious heart condition, plots to kill thousands of innocent men women and children just to become richer. And a mass of people are willing to help him do it.

You don't think that sounds an itsy witsy bit incredible ?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The way I see your response is, because you think your theory is the most logical, it some how becomes fact.

Most of your statements in your theory may be correct, I do not know because I was not there, but what I do know is that it is a theory because it cannot be proven to be the only way it happened.

Moreover, when forming a theory you cannot rule out something just because you find it improbable/illogical, which is what I think you're doing.

For example: the nano-thermite found in the wtc debris. Is nano-thermite in the debris improbable? Absolutely!, but its there and we must factor it into the theory.

reply to post by Alfie1

I've thought about that very thing, I don't know.
I do know he's done everything including running on batteries
to stay alive. Shoot maybe he's in some crazy witchcraft secret society
where he can put his consciousness in a baby? (kidding)
But why would he do anything to make more money since he's
already so fabulously wealthy?
There is no question to this day, his agenda is at full steam.
(convincing us Iran has nukes and will use them)
But it's really about getting that oil.
Why would he bother with that?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

The way I see your response is, because you think your theory is the most logical, it some how becomes fact.

I do not say it is fact. I say it is the most logical answer because the theory conforms to the facts, rather than the facts having to conform to the theory. This is why I keep saying that if these conspiracy theorists don't subscribe to the 9/11 report it therefore becomes their responsibility to provide an alrternative scenario that likewise conforms to the facts. Simply passing everything off as being the work of armies of mysterious sinister secret agents is just being intellectually lazy.

Most of your statements in your theory may be correct, I do not know because I was not there, but what I do know is that it is a theory because it cannot be proven to be the only way it happened.

Moreover, when forming a theory you cannot rule out something just because you find it improbable/illogical, which is what I think you're doing.

Noone is saying we should rule something out simply becuase it sounds improbable. This is because "improbable" is a subjective thing. What is the probability that anyone can be seriously convinced of the need to cut off their genitals before committing suicide so they can board a UFO hiding behind a comet, like those "Heaven's Gate" kooks did? The "probability" that someone can likewise be convinced that God will reward them with 72 virgins for crashing a hijacked plane into a skyscraper may likewise sound absurd to us...but then again we're not the type who's going to strap a bomb to our bodies and set it off in the middle of a crowded market in Bagdhad, either.

This is why the available facts needs to take priority regardless of the probability or improbability of the scenario the facts point to, specifically becuase it's the facts that determine what is probable and what is not.

For example: the nano-thermite found in the wtc debris. Is nano-thermite in the debris improbable? Absolutely!, but its there and we must factor it into the theory.

...unless the "nano-thermite" has been shown in subsequent tests to be paint chips and the guy who discovered the "nano-thermite" was just someone who specifically went looking for proof of conspiracy whether there was actually conspiracy or not.

Independent tests of WTC dust shows no traces of thermitic material

reply to post by GoodOlDave


It seems probable that the "nano-thermite" was just paint so that's great that we can possibly rule it out, BUT that doesn't change your theory, of how the conspiracy was perpetrated, from a conspiracy theory to a conspiracy fact.

btw, thanks for the link.. I'll definitely follow that thread.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

It seems probable that the "nano-thermite" was just paint so that's great that we can possibly rule it out, BUT that doesn't change your theory, of how the conspiracy was perpetrated, from a conspiracy theory to a conspiracy fact.

You are right, it doesn't, and in fact I'm even willing to accept the possibility that Mohammed Atta might have been innocent and it was really one of the other four identified hijackers on that plane who did the hijacking, and he himself is being falsely blamed because he's a muslim who was in the wrong place in the wrong time. Not every muslim is a terrorist, after all, and there were four other guys involved in the hijacking, and without any concrete evidence disproving it, that theory is as reasonable sounding as any of the others. That said, the fact that German intelligence reported that Atta was in contact with known Al Qaida operatives while in Germany and that Atta received flight training in a school in Florida pushes him closer and closer to "active participant", since it would be a mind blowing coincidence that the one guy known to be aboard a hijacked plane with known zealous religious views AND was known to be in contact with Al Qaida AND was known to have flight training on that specific type of plane was just an innocent bystander throughout the affair.

I don't need to tell you that the acceptance that Mohammed Atta was an active participant in the hijacking dismisses 75% of the "inside jobs" accusations right there.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't need to tell you that the acceptance that Mohammed Atta was an active participant in the hijacking dismisses 75% of the "inside jobs" accusations right there.

Trying to bring it back on topic: Lets say Atta was involved.

Why do you think Atta's involvement rules out an "inside job" theory when most "inside job" theories believe that someone on the inside master minded the whole conspiracy. There is certainly enough motive for someone on the inside to have gotten Atta and others to be involved in the conspiracy.

I don't know if you see the war profiteering and police state bills as people who, "never let a crisis go to waste", or not, but I see it as motive for "armies of mysterious sinister secret agents".

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

The Motive, in my considered opinion was for several reasons. One glaring reason was the so called Patriot Act. Americans would never had allowed it before 9-11. Secondly was to hide paperwork, computer files, and gold and who knows what else from the American public forever.

Cache of Gold Found at WTC Two truckloads retrieved through a tunnel in rubble

Missing Gold

Further, the Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center. The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”.....could not account for and needed to “find”, $2.3 Trillion dollars (some reports said $2.6 Trillion).

Why Was the Office of Naval Intelligence Targeted?

Third, 9-11 provided ways for some very Draconian Laws to be passed, or bypassed, and the case may be. Never before was the NSA/FBI able to capture and record every post, email, phone call, cell, or hard line, and set up surveillance cameras everywhere. Never before did people on a airline flight have to go though naked body scanners manned by pedophiles and other bad elements.

Also, GWB and Cabal needed a good reason to start a war with Iraq. (Oil) Saddam had refused to pay off his war debts, and so the US Marines came to visit.

Last, but not least, never before did anyone need
Private Military Contractors to do things forbidden my the Military.

To me, the Motives are very clear. Never ending war and a Police State in America.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Actually they did leave statements in 1996 behind explaining their reasoning prior to the attacks, it revolves around US interference in the middle east (eg in the form of Iraqi sanctions and war on them), and unilateral biased support for Israel.

reply to post by neformore


So explain the Muslims who were attacking us back in the 1790s. There is a catchy song that refers to it.....i think the line is "....to the shores of Tripoli......."

Pride. America was becoming a second-rate country with diminishing relevance and prestige. Twin Towers, the symbol of America´s superiority – as part of the picture – were doomed. There was a multi-billion dollar plan to disassemble the towers to the ground. The deconstruction would have taken years to complete under the eyes of the world. And this at the same time when taller and bolder skyscrapers as images of wealth and power, were being built in other countries. That equals a motive.

Originally posted by Varemia

It was both box-cutters and small knives, by the way. You might benefit from actually reading the Official Story.

I have, hence why I disbelieve it, seems like they got your mind under control though.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by 4hero

 

Its called making a statement. A big bold one.

Figuring that out isn't exactly rocket science. Even if the towers didn't fall, the message was a clear one.

What is it about this subject that seems to stop people thinking?

What are you on about exactly? I need a point of reference otherwise your comment is meaningless..

I take it you're an OS hugger too?!