The Painful Truth and Lies Behind 9/11

Originally posted by 4hero
Sure, he was committed to death by trial, but the trial would not have happened had they gone in under false pretenses. Should we then hang members of the US government for killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan? Where do we draw the line?

Like I said, I don't support Capital Punishment. Want to put Bush in jail for starting the Iraq war? I will be in the Gallery cheering.

reply to post by exponent

I dunno, I obviously live a long way away, but I don't know anyone who would give an educated opinion that Saddam had to be removed.

Really? He summary executed anyone in conflict with the Baath party. He engaged in ethic cleansing against ethnic Kurds and Shiite muslims. I don't have the numbers off-hand but it included thousands of women and children. The irony is, of course, we Americans put him in power against Iran. I'm not sure when my govt will realize this comes to bite us in the rump every time!

I can appreciate that, but we still got an awful lot of turmoil from Iraq, it was a huge hot button issue over here and I know many people who were unbelievably angry and offended by it. I don't think it really worked in any way other than GWB getting the guy his Dad failed at.

I agree. I had a lot of friends deployed in the Gulf. We didn't leave it any better than we found it. No infrastructure, no jobs, nothing. But, in all reality, we weren't over there to nation-build. We were there for oil and vengeance. We secured our interests. I wouldn't believe anyone saying anything different. We have a terrible foreign policy.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Really? He summary executed anyone in conflict with the Baath party. He engaged in ethic cleansing against ethnic Kurds and Shiite muslims. I don't have the numbers off-hand but it included thousands of women and children. The irony is, of course, we Americans put him in power against Iran. I'm not sure when my govt will realize this comes to bite us in the rump every time!

Don't get me wrong, the question wasn't whether he was a bad person, but whether we should have invaded his country and removed him as a leader by force. I never agreed with that, and I still don't. There are better ways to deal with dictators.

You have to appreciate though that I might not believe in invading Iraq, but this has nothing to do with any truth or lies about 911. Opportunism doesn't prove complicity, otherwise we could all be accused of so many things.

Originally posted by exponent
I dunno, I obviously live a long way away, but I don't know anyone who would give an educated opinion that Saddam had to be removed.

Many officials stated the "need" for Saddam and his regime to be removed, even before 9/11.

PNAC site - Wolfowitz' letter to Clinton, 1998

www.newamericancentury.org...

We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.

Notice all the WMD rhetoric, some of which was quoted word for word on different MSM outlets here in the U.S. after 9/11 to ramp up Congress and the public for war.

Thing is, WMD's weren't the real focus of their war-mongering propaganda at that point. It was the "connection to al Qaeda" - the "perpetrators of 9/11"

By the time that "intelligence" report was debunked, we were already knee deep in the war with much of the public believing we were killing "terrorists" and those "evil muslims"

Originally posted by exponent
I might not believe in invading Iraq, but this has nothing to do with any truth or lies about 911.

Expo, you should watch War by Deception. It's over three hours long, but worth it, even if you can't watch it all in one go.



It covers a lot of the lies about Iraq to get the war started and how they (the lies and the liars) were connected to the lies about 9/11 and the anthrax events afterwards. I believe you couldn't be more wrong to separate the two topics entirely.

Ok - look, here's how you don't conduct an ultra high stakes false flag/conspiracy:


You don't purloin a cruise missile/drone and fly it into the Pentagon in broad daylight, with hundreds of witnesses cameras etc - and then plan on telling people it was a jetliner full of people, whilst at the same time having to hiack a plane anyway, land it somewhere then shoot and dispose of all the passengers.

Then find a lot of airline parts, scatter them all over the crash site somehow without anyone noticing - and hope no-one notices the giveaway signature of explosive residue.


If you are a jihadist though - what better than to get those stupid infidel suckers to think their own gov did it.
If a congenital pacifist - than to refuse to acknowedge we were attacked.
If a leftist - to pin the blame on Bush.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Ok - look, here's how you don't conduct an ultra high stakes false flag/conspiracy:


You don't purloin a cruise missile/drone and fly it into the Pentagon in broad daylight, with hundreds of witnesses cameras etc - and then plan on telling people it was a jetliner full of people, whilst at the same time having to hiack a plane anyway, land it somewhere then shoot and dispose of all the passengers.

Then find a lot of airline parts, scatter them all over the crash site somehow without anyone noticing - and hope no-one notices the giveaway signature of explosive residue.


If you are a jihadist though - what better than to get those stupid infidel suckers to think their own gov did it.

I do concur that the missile theory is ridiculous. However...

1) Hijack a plane, land it somewhere, execute passengers - Flying it into remote ocean would be simple enough.
2) Missile/drone? Two different theories. The "drone technologies" vary greatly. Some of it allows takeover of an airliner mid-flight from the ground. In that case, the passengers would still have been on board.
3) Scatter airplane parts - once again, "drones" would prevent that scenario.
4) Explosive residue - and again, I assume you're talking about the missile theory?

It takes a jihadist to conceive a government conspiracy, huh? I guess ATS is jihad HQ?

ETA: Pacifists and leftists that's just as funny.

reply to post by jlm912


When you are planning an operation like that........................YOU KEEP IT SIMPLE AND FOOLPROOF!

.......................................and the simplest easiest most foolproof way, is to allow a bunch of Saudi jihadis to hijack a plane and do it themselves.


To deter anyone from looking to closely at the sequence of events and what the intel was - you might encourage a whole whirlwind insane bull# that makes anyone who touches it look like a complete loony.


That is the painfull truth of 911 for truthers!

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by 4hero

 

The PetroDollar is a very hot-button topic, but still, why would they not plant a WMD? If TPTB exist like some people claim, it should be the simplest possible operation. Hell, they even gave presentations about mobile chemical weapons labs that they literally didn't even need to find, they could just have blown up a truck and claimed it was one.

But they didn't, why? I don't know.

I would think that planting nuclear material is not all that easy. This stuff has a trail. It would then have to investigated were they got it. And since it wasn't a solely US operation, I suppose they could not risk at being exposed to other nations. It's a huge risk to play that game...just removing Saddam and saying "we were wrong about the WMD's" worked much better anyway. Nobody questioned the WMD's thing afterwards. Nobody cares.
Except the crazy loony conspiracy freaks. And they are easy...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Seriously, like the anthrax traced back to U.S. military labs... They tend to use convenient scapegoats, like Mr. Feith and the false Iraq-al Qaeda connection. MSM did well not to dwell to far into his Israeli connection before he "resigned under pressure", though

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


I will concur that it's "smart" to get a bunch of idiots to go along with plans as a scapegoat. Like the Saudi agent who was provided housing here in the U.S. for two of the alleged hijackers. But what about the 7-8 out of 19 names found to be of individuals still alive and well in the middle east? Or the fact that they (Or at least the names we know) were never on the flight manifests? The fact that one of the hijackers' cousin was busted as a Mossad operative? Or Mohammed Atta discovered to have been living next door to Mossad agents?

Even when you convince and pay a hitman to do your dirty work, you're still liable for "conspiracy"

reply to post by jlm912


Your post is a prime example of why some of us are still here, many years later. People continue to believe the BS they read on the Internet. Hijackers alive? Nope. That one was debunked in November 2001. Hijackers not on the manifests? Nope. The hijackers were all on the manifests, with the exception of Hani Hanjour. People like you however, still confuse the VICTIMS lists with the manifests. And unfortunately, people like you will still be confused decades from now.

you're close, but the drone/missile theory is unfortunate because it deflects attention away from the real conspiracy imho.

tenet either let it happen to cover his butt, or to further his agenda with AQ

they knew the bad guys were here after a secret meeting, and they knew thay had bad intentions. what's really interesting is they met with a saudi handler before the attack.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Hijackers alive? Nope. That one was debunked in November 2001.

Debunked? Hardly. FBI: "Mistaken Identity. Move Along, move along, as there's nothing to see here."

The manifests - I concede that one. Parroted with no research on my part.

But I still have 3 out of five points up there in that post you didn't bother touching.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
tenet either let it happen to cover his butt, or to further his agenda with AQ

What agenda did tenet have with AQ? Allowing a known terrorist and USS Cole bombing suspect to come to and live here in the U.S....

What would he have been covering his butt from?

Originally posted by jlm912
But what about the 7-8 out of 19 names found to be of individuals still alive and well in the middle east?

Tell us exactly. Which 7-8 hijackers do you think are still alive and what is your evidence to support it.

The hijackers are dead.

They're not only merely dead. They're really most sincerely dead.

Why would they use drones?

Plant some explosives(done), involve some false eye-witness(done), have MSM on your side screaming about the plane, plant some airplane parts - and what is the use of a real plane or even a drone?

However, I like the drone theory.

reply to post by waypastvne


Well, if you could read exactly what I wrote, you'd see that specific quote was not that 7-8 of the hijackers were alive, but the names found to be of individuals that are/were still living post 9/11. But they're just "common Arabic names," right?

reply to post by jlm912


Your research sucks then. The FBI, as of November 2001, had absolutely NO doubt in their list of the hijackers. And as of today NO ONE has seen those 19 men alive.

reply to post by jlm912


So basically once someone has made an allegation you are going to believe it is true for the rest of time, despite absolutely no evidence to back it up?

The 'hijackers are alive' claims stem from before the hijackers were even properly identified. Once that happened then of course it was found that yes indeed they were on the planes and not magically alive in Pakistan or whatever.

There are no sources supporting them being alive, the BBC themselves, the source of most of the original claims, have repudiated them.

How is it possible you can support a premise based on one report over a decade ago but cannot even bring yourself to understand things like jet fuel, which was attested to by tens if not hundreds on the day and they remain alive and you can ask them questions to this day.

The bias you must have to deal with internally must be horrible, how do you even pick which speculative news articles you support and which you don't?