NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, alright, alright...before you go off like "this asshole is fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theories," just hear me out, I'm not so sure about this myself, but there is a huge case pointing to the fact that 9/11 wasn't exactly what the Administration would like you to believe.

First off, if this wasn't planned by the Bush Administration, then it still should have been prevented because, despite the claims, there was indeed ample time, at the point of departure from flight path to point of impact, for several F-16s to scramble up or reroute to intercept and shoot down the passenger planes.

Now for the conspiracy theory part, there are four or five freeze-frame shots taken from a security camera at the Pentagon parkinglot that recorded the impact of the "airplane" that crashed into the Pentagon. There were other securtity cameras mounted on the roofs of nearby beuildings, but those tapes were confiscated shortly after impact by the FBI (hmm...). The pictures show a vapor trail as the object hit the pentagon side. Now, the Administration claimed that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon outer ring (E) and pierced rings D and C. The hole left in the Pentagon-even after the collapse of the surrounding area-isn't nearly as big as it should've been if a 757 indeed crash into the side. In the inner part of ring C only has about a 10 foot hole where an "enigine" flew through. How does 2% of the plane's weight bust through three rings of the Pentagon while the other 98% dissappears? There are virtually no markings on the lawn where the "plane" crashed into and large spools of cables at the crash site are untouched where they should've been destroyed with the impact of the plane. Eyewitnesses on the ground reported hearing a piercing jet engine as the Pentagon exploded. All evidence shows that a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Here is a link complete with pictures, diagrams and explanations of facts and what the Administraion says and why the two don't match:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

There are also pictures of the planes that hit the WTC carrying unusual objects underneath the fuselage and many reports from physicists and engineers who claim that the stories the Administration made up to explain the collapse of the twin towers and the surrounding buildings simply aren't logical once you know all the facts. Such as, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, even massive amounts, isn't high enough to melt the reinforced steel used in the towers' construction and that the sporadic "fires" in the surrounding buildings set by the collapse of the twin towers don't explain the uniform "accordian" collapse that they (the other WTC buildings) suffered.

The "hero" story of flight 93 was set up so that people would believe that this wasn't as devastating as it could've been and the claim that it was headed for the White House would've discouraged any conspiracy theories--like this one. There are however, insane claims that the government has somesort of an infrared LASER mounted on a C-130 capable of shooting down an aircraft, and it was used on flight 93, but that is just crazy.

Now the big question; why the hell would the Bush Administration do this? The loss of lives alone should stop anyone with morals from committing such unthinkable acts. And the economic recession we faced afterwards was momentarily devastating. Now that we know the bad that happened, how could they have possibly profited from these actoins?

In the late 1990's the PNAC was formed.

in late 2000, their decoy leader was successfully put in place with the other members in their correct spots. All they need now is a spark so that their global goal could be realized.

The economic benefit of the invasion of the Middle East for certain companies and certain individuals far outweigh the economic loss as a result of the "hijacked planes" crashing into the twin towers and pentagon. Just after 9/11, the entire country was in an enormous state of fear and blind patriotism, the ideal conditions for fascism, communism or any -ism to thrive off of. Then the "terror alert" color guide was set up. The rhetoric of Bush (Rove's scripts more precisely) instilling fear (which I won't get into) aid the terror alert's effectiveness. Now at the flick of the wrist, the American public could be held in a state of fear, lots of fear, more fear and extreme fear. We are now controlled by fear.

For the Americans to believe such an attack it is vital for a culprit, a mega-villian to emerge onto the playing field, someone notorious for terrorism. Usama bin Laden would be perfect. We simply pay him large sums of money to claim responsibility, give him a few days head start and then pretend to go on an all out search for him. Why do you think the most advanced military in the world hasn't been able to find a raghead hiding in caves? Maybe we aren't trying as hard as we did to find Saddam?

If you don't believe this, fine, I don't believe the entire thing myself, but you can never rule anything out. This is not meant as an attack on the Administration or anyone who believes the government isn't lying to them (Big Brother does indeed love you :eek: ) so if you don't agree with anything, that's cool with me, this is simply a theory, fortified with hard evidence, that deserves serious consideration.

Perhaps there are substatial amounts of credible evidence that supports the Administration's claim of 9/11 and disproves this claim? Just remember, war is peace, ignorace is strength and freedom is slavery and Big Brother loves you and will never lie to you.

Ooh.. a copycat thread!

Come get some milk!

Ooh.. a copycat thread!

Come get some milk!
yes...and I posted on the other thread I'd be starting this.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Our expectations (like the size of the hole in the Pentagon) don't necessarily coincide with reality.

Now the big question; why the hell would the Bush Administration do this? The loss of lives alone should stop anyone with morals from committing such unthinkable acts. And the economic recession we faced afterwards was momentarily devastating. Now that we know the bad that happened, how could they have possibly profited from these actoins?

In the late 1990's the PNAC was formed.


What exactly is PNAC?

What exactly is PNAC?
neoconservative group committed to spreading their ideals throughout the world by force.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

First off, if this wasn't planned by the Bush Administration, then it still should have been prevented because, despite the claims, there was indeed ample time, at the point of departure from flight path to point of impact, for several F-16s to scramble up or reroute to intercept and shoot down the passenger planes.

It takes 45 minutes to scramble a crew that's not on alert.

Now for the conspiracy theory part, there are four or five freeze-frame shots taken from a security camera at the Pentagon parkinglot that recorded the impact of the "airplane" that crashed into the Pentagon. There were other securtity cameras mounted on the roofs of nearby beuildings, but those tapes were confiscated shortly after impact by the FBI (hmm...). The pictures show a vapor trail as the object hit the pentagon side. Now, the Administration claimed that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon outer ring (E) and pierced rings D and C. The hole left in the Pentagon-even after the collapse of the surrounding area-isn't nearly as big as it should've been if a 757 indeed crash into the side. In the inner part of ring C only has about a 10 foot hole where an "enigine" flew through. How does 2% of the plane's weight bust through three rings of the Pentagon while the other 98% dissappears? There are virtually no markings on the lawn where the "plane" crashed into and large spools of cables at the crash site are untouched where they should've been destroyed with the impact of the plane. Eyewitnesses on the ground reported hearing a piercing jet engine as the Pentagon exploded. All evidence shows that a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Here is a link complete with pictures, diagrams and explanations of facts and what the Administraion says and why the two don't match:

Speed must also be taken into consideration. Flying that low, you don't have a lot of speed. You overestimate the force that jet liners, mostly hollow may I remind you, can carry, and give off.

There are also pictures of the planes that hit the WTC carrying unusual objects underneath the fuselage and many reports from physicists and engineers who claim that the stories the Administration made up to explain the collapse of the twin towers and the surrounding buildings simply aren't logical once you know all the facts. Such as, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, even massive amounts, isn't high enough to melt the reinforced steel used in the towers' construction and that the sporadic "fires" in the surrounding buildings set by the collapse of the twin towers don't explain the uniform "accordian" collapse that they (the other WTC buildings) suffered.

I watched the second plane with my own eyes. There was nothing there.

Thank you for bringing more dispair into the lives of 5000+ families, and downplaying their loss as that of a power hungry president. Have fun with the guilt you now hold inside of you. Never discrace my computer screen with such ignorance and insensitivity again. Good day.

It takes 45 minutes to scramble a crew that's not on alert.

Okay...

Speed must also be taken into consideration. Flying that low, you don't have a lot of speed. You overestimate the force that jet liners, mostly hollow may I remind you, can carry, and give off.
Okay, that still doesn't explain how it just disappeared less a few small scraps. Still, you can't flay a plane into a building without marking up the lawn. I'm sorry, but your logic here is a bit faulty. You make a 757 jet as to be a cessna.

I watched the second plane with my own eyes. There was nothing there. That's cuz you were at least a few hundred feet away and probably saw it for a split second if you are indeed telling the truth (which for some reason I find hard to believe.)

here's another reputable site with evidence supporting my claim:

http://911research.wtc7.net/

Thank you for bringing more dispair into the lives of 5000+ families, and downplaying their loss as that of a power hungry president. Have fun with the guilt you now hold inside of you. Never discrace my computer screen with such ignorance and insensitivity again. Good day.

Too bad I'm not bringing more "despair into the lives of 5000+ families." Don't they deserve the absolute truth? Same with our troops? And what do you say to Bill O' Reilly who destroyed the reputation of a man who lost his father in the WTC attacks? I am in no way attacking the families of thie victims of 9/11. The families of the 9/11 victims deserve the truth instead of the blind "patriotism" that is present in your comments. You're dead wrong there, my friend. And if you don't like what I say, don't read it...continue to live in your sheltered world of lies and tales made up by Big Brother.

Is Al Qaeda a creation of the Democrat National Committee?

Here you go, A45. I couple movies that are right up your alley.

http://www.archive.org/details/911theRoadtoTyranny

http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911

YOU SHALL BOW AND WORSHIP ALEX JONES AS YOUR HERO! :p

*Ahem*

This asshole is fucking crazy. :cool:

Any site that mentions Illuminati conspiracies is not "credible".

Is wasn't the president, it was an anarchist group.

I do believe the reply bitch you be trippen is appropriate here.

I do know that Papa Smirf is a communist and that Barney the dinosaur is in league with Evil Burt! :eek:

There are however, insane claims that the government has somesort of an infrared LASER mounted on a C-130 capable of shooting down an aircraft, and it was used on flight 93, but that is just crazy.



Um...the USAF has been working on something like that for years. Its a laser mounted on the nose of a modified Boeing 747. the actual laser is inside the aircraft in the fuselage, while what you might call the emitter is mounted on the nose.
Its being designed to track and destroy incoming missiles(like a scud). What it does is that it picks up the launch of the missile and tracks it. It then fires a laser beam at the missile and burns a hole in the fuel tank area, the fuel is then leaking out into the exhaust plume from the missiles engine. Thus causing the missile to explode while still in enemy airspace.Now a missile travels a lot faster then any jet. So i dont see why this couldnt be applied to some civvie commercial aircraft. Just thought i would point that out

Such as, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, even massive amounts, isn't high enough to melt the reinforced steel used in the towers' construction and that the sporadic "fires" in the surrounding buildings set by the collapse of the twin towers don't explain the uniform "accordian" collapse that they (the other WTC buildings) suffered.

You know what, those engineers are entirely correct. The jet fuel did not burn hot enough to melt the steel beams. But then, it didn't need to. Firstly, there were other materials in the WTC's that burned hotter than jet fuel once lit. Secondly, you don't have to come anywhere near the melting point of steel in order to make it weak. Watch a blacksmith forging a blade sometime. Combined with the stress fractures that would have been produced by the planes impact there was ample reason for the towers to collapse. As for the whole accordian fall bit, that was part of the way they were designed to fall in case they ever needed to be demolished. When the upper floors collapsed it caused a chain reaction as it came down on the floors below.

Alright, alright, alright...before you go off like "this asshole is fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theories," just hear me out, I'm not so sure about this myself, but there is a huge case pointing to the fact that 9/11 wasn't exactly what the Administration would like you to believe.

First off, if this wasn't planned by the Bush Administration, then it still should have been prevented because, despite the claims, there was indeed ample time, at the point of departure from flight path to point of impact, for several F-16s to scramble up or reroute to intercept and shoot down the passenger planes.

Now for the conspiracy theory part, there are four or five freeze-frame shots taken from a security camera at the Pentagon parkinglot that recorded the impact of the "airplane" that crashed into the Pentagon. There were other securtity cameras mounted on the roofs of nearby beuildings, but those tapes were confiscated shortly after impact by the FBI (hmm...). The pictures show a vapor trail as the object hit the pentagon side. Now, the Administration claimed that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon outer ring (E) and pierced rings D and C. The hole left in the Pentagon-even after the collapse of the surrounding area-isn't nearly as big as it should've been if a 757 indeed crash into the side. In the inner part of ring C only has about a 10 foot hole where an "enigine" flew through. How does 2% of the plane's weight bust through three rings of the Pentagon while the other 98% dissappears? There are virtually no markings on the lawn where the "plane" crashed into and large spools of cables at the crash site are untouched where they should've been destroyed with the impact of the plane. Eyewitnesses on the ground reported hearing a piercing jet engine as the Pentagon exploded. All evidence shows that a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Here is a link complete with pictures, diagrams and explanations of facts and what the Administraion says and why the two don't match:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

There are also pictures of the planes that hit the WTC carrying unusual objects underneath the fuselage and many reports from physicists and engineers who claim that the stories the Administration made up to explain the collapse of the twin towers and the surrounding buildings simply aren't logical once you know all the facts. Such as, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, even massive amounts, isn't high enough to melt the reinforced steel used in the towers' construction and that the sporadic "fires" in the surrounding buildings set by the collapse of the twin towers don't explain the uniform "accordian" collapse that they (the other WTC buildings) suffered.

The "hero" story of flight 93 was set up so that people would believe that this wasn't as devastating as it could've been and the claim that it was headed for the White House would've discouraged any conspiracy theories--like this one. There are however, insane claims that the government has somesort of an infrared LASER mounted on a C-130 capable of shooting down an aircraft, and it was used on flight 93, but that is just crazy.

Now the big question; why the hell would the Bush Administration do this? The loss of lives alone should stop anyone with morals from committing such unthinkable acts. And the economic recession we faced afterwards was momentarily devastating. Now that we know the bad that happened, how could they have possibly profited from these actoins?

In the late 1990's the PNAC was formed.

in late 2000, their decoy leader was successfully put in place with the other members in their correct spots. All they need now is a spark so that their global goal could be realized.

The economic benefit of the invasion of the Middle East for certain companies and certain individuals far outweigh the economic loss as a result of the "hijacked planes" crashing into the twin towers and pentagon. Just after 9/11, the entire country was in an enormous state of fear and blind patriotism, the ideal conditions for fascism, communism or any -ism to thrive off of. Then the "terror alert" color guide was set up. The rhetoric of Bush (Rove's scripts more precisely) instilling fear (which I won't get into) aid the terror alert's effectiveness. Now at the flick of the wrist, the American public could be held in a state of fear, lots of fear, more fear and extreme fear. We are now controlled by fear.

For the Americans to believe such an attack it is vital for a culprit, a mega-villian to emerge onto the playing field, someone notorious for terrorism. Usama bin Laden would be perfect. We simply pay him large sums of money to claim responsibility, give him a few days head start and then pretend to go on an all out search for him. Why do you think the most advanced military in the world hasn't been able to find a raghead hiding in caves? Maybe we aren't trying as hard as we did to find Saddam?

If you don't believe this, fine, I don't believe the entire thing myself, but you can never rule anything out. This is not meant as an attack on the Administration or anyone who believes the government isn't lying to them (Big Brother does indeed love you :eek: ) so if you don't agree with anything, that's cool with me, this is simply a theory, fortified with hard evidence, that deserves serious consideration.

Perhaps there are substatial amounts of credible evidence that supports the Administration's claim of 9/11 and disproves this claim? Just remember, war is peace, ignorace is strength and freedom is slavery and Big Brother loves you and will never lie to you.

WHAT THE FUCK are you on?

And can I have some?

You do realize, of course, the massive sum of money it would take for someone to claim responsibility for such an attack.

I'm very skeptical, but this stuff intrigues me. I think there's something up with Vreeland, as the military clearly lied about him working for Navy intelligence, they classified most of his extradition hearings, he was confirmed to be in Russia, and the person he was with was murdered there. Add that to be arrested for credit-card fraud with your OWN credit card, and... Geez.

You know what, those engineers are entirely correct. The jet fuel did not burn hot enough to melt the steel beams. But then, it didn't need to. Firstly, there were other materials in the WTC's that burned hotter than jet fuel once lit.
To my knowledge, very little things burn hotter than jet fuel, as it's highly-concentrated (therefore expensive), to be extremely combustible. If there are things in the WTCs that are more combustible than jet fuel, then why don't they use THOSE THINGS for jet fuel? You see my point.

To my knowledge, very little things burn hotter than jet fuel, as it's highly-concentrated (therefore expensive), to be extremely combustible. If there are things in the WTCs that are more combustible than jet fuel, then why don't they use THOSE THINGS for jet fuel? You see my point.
Jet fuel is a dense liquid that is highly combustible. Combustibility has less to do with heat output than most people think. The materials in the WTC were a.) solid, b.) not highly combustible, and c.) less dense.

Jet fuel is a dense liquid that is highly combustible. Combustibility has less to do with heat output than most people think. The materials in the WTC were a.) solid, b.) not highly combustible, and c.) less dense.

The reports I have seen basically point out the the jet fuel burned up almost immediately. The trouble is that it set everything else on fire on the crash floors, which burned for long enough to weaken the beams, which had the insulation blown off of them by the impact, so that they eventually failed.

Gravity did the rest.

The Pentagon was a more hardened structure, had less load on it, was a more dispersed structure, and therefore remained standing for the most part. In addition, fewer floors were set on fire, and thus that fire did not spread because the fire walls outside of the immediate crash area were not directly damaged. The 9/11 report sums it up nicely, as do a LOT of reports by independent analysts.

Conspiracy theories abound, but none are creditable unless you choose to ignore the facts of the matter.

Many seem to want to do so. Of course a lot of people are sure that Area 51 has actual alien spacecraft, the Club of Rome rules the world and other such folklore.

Let me touch on the confiscation of surveilence tapes.

This is the Pentagon we are talking about. One of the largest structures in the entire world. It houses the central command and control of the most powerful military in the entire world. This building controls everything from what belts are used to hold the soldiers pants up to special operations so classified very few people will EVER know about them.

The Pentagon has been our military's headquarters since sometime in the early to mid 1900s. Why is this important? Because that should give you an idea how long it's going to be there...there are no plans to move. No plans to rebuild. Only to reinforce.

So the point to all of this? A video of the plane just before it impacts the building would provide not only terrorist but any enemy current or future vital information to stage a more succesful attack on our military's headquarters. Believe it or not, they would use those videos to determine angle of approach and speed...in the hands of a specialist this could be used to either a) repeat attack or b) plan a more effective attack.

Fifty years from now some enemy we do not know of could simply pull up old archive footage of the hit on the Pentagon and immediatly have easy intelligence on how to cripple our military's central command and control.

This is not speculation. This is not paranoia. These are cold hard facts. THAT is the MAIN reason there are basically no pictures of the actual hit (which would help display structural weaknesses to an expert) and no pictures of the final approach (which give an idea of approach angle and speed).

As for the amount of debris...well take a look at a car involved in a high speed crash and see how much of it is left...now enlarge that car a few hundred times, accelerate that car to 500 mph and throw in hundreds of gallons of volitile jet engine fuel...with the inertia, speed, and chemicals involved hitting solid ground it is likely most of that plane will vaporize before it given the chance to push very far into the ground...it's vaporized as it hits.

The idea Bush was involved is pretty crackpot. There would be a lot of people involved in such an operation and I doubt they'd keep quiet. There are a whole lot easier and less bloodier ways to gain blind patriotism.

The idea that the US Goverment could have stopped 20 men amongst our 290 million in a world of billions with thousands who would like to do that very thing...well...hind sight is 20/20. It's a whole lot easier to say that we SHOULD have stopped them. In practice it is a whole lot harder.

I mean really...thinking about what they did...that was pretty easy what they did. I'm amazed the goverment had any idea whatsoever about it.

The Pentagon was a more hardened structure, had less load on it, was a more dispersed structure, and therefore remained standing for the most part. In addition, fewer floors were set on fire, and thus that fire did not spread because the fire walls outside of the immediate crash area were not directly damaged. The 9/11 report sums it up nicely, as do a LOT of reports by independent analysts.

The Pentagon is basically a fortress. It is DESIGNED to take a hit. It is a military structure. Not a commercial office building. It was specifically designed to take hits because it is a valid military target.

If you study the layout of the pentagon you'll see multiple rings (I believe 5). and then large bulkheads seperating each ring. It's an ingenious design that demonstrated its effectiveness on 9/11. The fact there was limited damage was because it was designed that way from the very beginning.



Of course a lot of people are sure that Area 51 has actual alien spacecraft, the Club of Rome rules the world and other such folklore.


Yeah... Area 51 is actually just an aiirfield where highly classified ariel vehicles are tested... F-22 Raptor had its start there...

The Pentagon is basically a fortress. It is DESIGNED to take a hit. It is a military structure. Not a commercial office building. It was specifically designed to take hits because it is a valid military target.

If you study the layout of the pentagon you'll see multiple rings (I believe 5). and then large bulkheads seperating each ring. It's an ingenious design that demonstrated its effectiveness on 9/11. The fact there was limited damage was because it was designed that way from the very beginning....

Actually not so much on purpose. Leslie Groves (as in the same guy who later ran the Manhatten Project) built it using the cheapest and easist to obtain materials available in 1941-42, as quickly as possible. (source is There is a War to Win, 2002 publication date, a history of the US Army in World War II, gives lots of details). As it happens, the easiest materials to get were concrete.... lots and lots of concrete. The Five rings were built that way because it was a simpler engineering and architectural plan for the hurry up and build it quick needs of the times. Ironically the military never thought they would fill it, and Roosevelt joked that it would be used postwar to store records in. This proves that bueracracy will always expand to the extent of limited space apparently.

Later, much later, as in a couple of years before 9/11, some actual protective measures where taken (sturdier windows, some exterior face hardening measures) but as it happens, by luck, only on the section that actually got hit. The other renovations were still under way.

And yes, Area 51 is where the Stealth aircraft first saw testing, and who knows what else as far as Black programs continue to this day. Probably not any UFOs though, the movie "Independence Day" not withstanding (chuckle).

I see one of two possibilities:

The Bush Aministration planned 9-11 in order to cover up the aliens being exploited in Area 51 in order to go back in time and help Abraham Lincoln and some guy from Missouri fake the Lunar landings, which really happened on Mars because the thingy went off course.

Or the Bush aministration had nothing to do with 9-11. The reason the planes weren't shot down? This was the first time since the kamakazees of WWII that someone purposely rammed a plane into a target. Between WWII and 9-11, other planes were hijacked without the terrorists ramming the planes into buildings. Those terrorists usually demanded money or the release of someone. The US probably thought that what looked like a typical hijacking and what sounded like a typical hijacking must really be a hijacking. Plus, everyone else just blew up the planes.

I see one of two possibilities:

The Bush Aministration planned 9-11 in order to cover up the aliens being exploited in Area 51 in order to go back in time and help Abraham Lincoln and some guy from Missouri fake the Lunar landings, which really happened on Mars because the thingy went off course.

Or the Bush aministration had nothing to do with 9-11. The reason the planes weren't shot down? This was the first time since the kamakazees of WWII that someone purposely rammed a plane into a target. Between WWII and 9-11, other planes were hijacked without the terrorists ramming the planes into buildings. Those terrorists usually demanded money or the release of someone. The US probably thought that what looked like a typical hijacking and what sounded like a typical hijacking must really be a hijacking. Plus, everyone else just blew up the planes.

I see what you are saying and I believe the former but you have to ask yourself...

was Barney the dinosaur involved?

9/11 was planned by the Kerry campaign in order to blame it on the Bush administration, obviously.
Get your facts straight. :rolleyes:

He secretly transmitted brain control devices into mice. He also ate my pie.

you guys are nuts. aliens...bush planned 9/11 in order to gain power

i dunno, considering the video of the impact shows a plane that looks much smaller then a 747, or any commercial airliner for that matter, not to mention, offically it was flying 2 feet off the ground anywhere from 430-500 MPH, i would think there would be considerable wake blast, but no reports of that, and, there are department of transportation cameras that would have seen the plane, but not the attack itself, kinda debunks the idea of censoring to keep future attacks out of the picture, and, wouldnt you think dive bombing the pentagon would be much more effective, much less to protect the people inside. not to mention everybody in bush's cabinet said he knew about them. and WTF is with is invading iraq, we bascially forgot about the BAD MAN osama (after the attacks we flew all his relatives out of the country during the grounding of all flights) and went after saddam, why. since we went into iraq, i havnt heard one word about the guy who "started" the fight against terrorism, just the fight against iraq and its bountiful oil supplies. We put saddam in office, we fudged up, and now we want oil. :mp5:

I've got one thing to say...

This thread starter is a f**king crazy a**hole.

He let his hatred of Bush blind him into insanity.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

I saw this thread...and while I dont find the pentagon thing credible...There is this other "conspiracy" that I have seen...
I dont want to believe it, but I would like someone to prove it wrong before I completely dismiss it.

http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

One of the things about this that I noticed, watching the towers collapse on TV, was that they appeared to free fall. Not what I would have expected. The above link addresses this.
And no, it doesnt dispute that planes existed, or that they were hijacked by al quaeda. Or any of that stuff. Only that the towers fell under controlled demolition.

Alright, alright, alright...before you go off like "this asshole is fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theories," just hear me out, I'm not so sure about this myself, but there is a huge case pointing to the fact that 9/11 wasn't exactly what the Administration would like you to believe.

First off, if this wasn't planned by the Bush Administration, then it still should have been prevented because, despite the claims, there was indeed ample time, at the point of departure from flight path to point of impact, for several F-16s to scramble up or reroute to intercept and shoot down the passenger planes.

Now for the conspiracy theory part, there are four or five freeze-frame shots taken from a security camera at the Pentagon parkinglot that recorded the impact of the "airplane" that crashed into the Pentagon. There were other securtity cameras mounted on the roofs of nearby beuildings, but those tapes were confiscated shortly after impact by the FBI (hmm...). The pictures show a vapor trail as the object hit the pentagon side. Now, the Administration claimed that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon outer ring (E) and pierced rings D and C. The hole left in the Pentagon-even after the collapse of the surrounding area-isn't nearly as big as it should've been if a 757 indeed crash into the side. In the inner part of ring C only has about a 10 foot hole where an "enigine" flew through. How does 2% of the plane's weight bust through three rings of the Pentagon while the other 98% dissappears? There are virtually no markings on the lawn where the "plane" crashed into and large spools of cables at the crash site are untouched where they should've been destroyed with the impact of the plane. Eyewitnesses on the ground reported hearing a piercing jet engine as the Pentagon exploded. All evidence shows that a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Here is a link complete with pictures, diagrams and explanations of facts and what the Administraion says and why the two don't match:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

There are also pictures of the planes that hit the WTC carrying unusual objects underneath the fuselage and many reports from physicists and engineers who claim that the stories the Administration made up to explain the collapse of the twin towers and the surrounding buildings simply aren't logical once you know all the facts. Such as, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, even massive amounts, isn't high enough to melt the reinforced steel used in the towers' construction and that the sporadic "fires" in the surrounding buildings set by the collapse of the twin towers don't explain the uniform "accordian" collapse that they (the other WTC buildings) suffered.

The "hero" story of flight 93 was set up so that people would believe that this wasn't as devastating as it could've been and the claim that it was headed for the White House would've discouraged any conspiracy theories--like this one. There are however, insane claims that the government has somesort of an infrared LASER mounted on a C-130 capable of shooting down an aircraft, and it was used on flight 93, but that is just crazy.

Now the big question; why the hell would the Bush Administration do this? The loss of lives alone should stop anyone with morals from committing such unthinkable acts. And the economic recession we faced afterwards was momentarily devastating. Now that we know the bad that happened, how could they have possibly profited from these actoins?

In the late 1990's the PNAC was formed.

in late 2000, their decoy leader was successfully put in place with the other members in their correct spots. All they need now is a spark so that their global goal could be realized.

The economic benefit of the invasion of the Middle East for certain companies and certain individuals far outweigh the economic loss as a result of the "hijacked planes" crashing into the twin towers and pentagon. Just after 9/11, the entire country was in an enormous state of fear and blind patriotism, the ideal conditions for fascism, communism or any -ism to thrive off of. Then the "terror alert" color guide was set up. The rhetoric of Bush (Rove's scripts more precisely) instilling fear (which I won't get into) aid the terror alert's effectiveness. Now at the flick of the wrist, the American public could be held in a state of fear, lots of fear, more fear and extreme fear. We are now controlled by fear.

For the Americans to believe such an attack it is vital for a culprit, a mega-villian to emerge onto the playing field, someone notorious for terrorism. Usama bin Laden would be perfect. We simply pay him large sums of money to claim responsibility, give him a few days head start and then pretend to go on an all out search for him. Why do you think the most advanced military in the world hasn't been able to find a raghead hiding in caves? Maybe we aren't trying as hard as we did to find Saddam?

If you don't believe this, fine, I don't believe the entire thing myself, but you can never rule anything out. This is not meant as an attack on the Administration or anyone who believes the government isn't lying to them (Big Brother does indeed love you :eek: ) so if you don't agree with anything, that's cool with me, this is simply a theory, fortified with hard evidence, that deserves serious consideration.

Perhaps there are substatial amounts of credible evidence that supports the Administration's claim of 9/11 and disproves this claim? Just remember, war is peace, ignorace is strength and freedom is slavery and Big Brother loves you and will never lie to you.

You aren't related to Morgan Stack are you{looks around nevrously}

IDR: friendly warning before the mods see it: your sig is far too long. Eight or nine lines is the limit.

On topic:

While a lot of the above is labeled as conspircay theory, one thing is very true.

Bush and his administration blatently and repeatedly ignored warnings about somthing like this happening. It probably could have been stopped, but it was ignored.

I don't think there was a conspiracy, but I do think that Bush used 9/11 to further his own gains afterwards. It's just natural human greed. Always wanting more, he just needed an excuse like all good leaders.

To quite simply put it, the baby was given his lollypop, and he wants 2.

Or i'm just talking bullshit, but we will never know. We're not telepathic, so we'll never know his true intentions.

Alright, alright, alright...before you go off like "this asshole is fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theories," just hear me out, I'm not so sure about this myself, but there is a huge case pointing to the fact that 9/11 wasn't exactly what the Administration would like you to believe.
<snip>
Perhaps there are substatial amounts of credible evidence that supports the Administration's claim of 9/11 and disproves this claim? Just remember, war is peace, ignorace is strength and freedom is slavery and Big Brother loves you and will never lie to you.

[Tinfoil Hat]

It wasn't Bush, it was the Illumanati. They control everything and planned the WTC attacks so carefully and precicely that they had the US Treasury engrave their Vision in exquisite detail on the back of every $20 bill printed in the US since, well, at least the 1999 $20 I'm holding... http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

BEWARE! The Skull & Bones/Illumanati/Bildibergers/Gnomes of Zurich can predict/control the future are out to Rule the World! :eek:

NOTE: Even worse than the $20, fold a new dollar coin in half, and it turns into a black helicopter....

[/tinfoil hat]

:headbang:

To my knowledge, very little things burn hotter than jet fuel, as it's highly-concentrated (therefore expensive), to be extremely combustible. If there are things in the WTCs that are more combustible than jet fuel, then why don't they use THOSE THINGS for jet fuel? You see my point.
And thus you demonstrate why we don't rely on your knowledge when it comes to jet fuel.

Jet fuel is used for a combination of factors. Weight, how much energy it releases in combustion, not to mention the fact that it comes in liquid form. Things that you find in an office building, paper, pastic, wood, metal, don't make suitable jet fuel (for obvious reasons). And many things do burn hotter than jet fuel. (Indeed, the harder something is to burn, often the hotter it will burn.)


Honestly, it scares me how readily people will believe theories from people who have little clue about physics and engineering. I mean, these "theories" are so full of holes and poor assumptions about engineering, aircraft, and structural analysis, it makes Einstein cry.

lets look at the facts here. Bush wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. AMerica is quickly using up the last of the worlds oil reserves. How could Bush get America angry enough with the middle east to back attacking it on the pretense of peace but in reality stockpiling oil for America?

9/11 is how. what was the cost? a few thousand lives. what the hell does that matter to a man who is feeding americans to the death machine that is Iraq?

You can call me all the names of the day - say what you want, but Im not thick. that scenario makes as much sense as any other.

lets look at the facts here. Bush wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. AMerica is quickly using up the last of the worlds oil reserves. How could Bush get America angry enough with the middle east to back attacking it on the pretense of peace but in reality stockpiling oil for America?

9/11 is how. what was the cost? a few thousand lives. what the hell does that matter to a man who is feeding americans to the death machine that is Iraq?

You can call me all the names of the day - say what you want, but Im not thick. that scenario makes as much sense as any other.


Wow-

If this thread and this post are representative of people against President Bus, he has nothing to worry about.

"Lets look at the facts here" ??? There are no facts, just purely biased and immature supposition.

Wow-

If this thread and this post are representative of people against President Bus, he has nothing to worry about.

"Lets look at the facts here" ??? There are no facts, just purely biased and immature supposition.
[Tinfoil Hat]

But, but, what about my 1999 $20 bill!!!???

[/tinfoil hat]

:rolleyes:

Now for the conspiracy theory part, there are four or five freeze-frame shots taken from a security camera at the Pentagon parkinglot that recorded the impact of the "airplane" that crashed into the Pentagon. There were other securtity cameras mounted on the roofs of nearby beuildings, but those tapes were confiscated shortly after impact by the FBI (hmm...). The pictures show a vapor trail as the object hit the pentagon side. Now, the Administration claimed that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon outer ring (E) and pierced rings D and C. The hole left in the Pentagon-even after the collapse of the surrounding area-isn't nearly as big as it should've been if a 757 indeed crash into the side. In the inner part of ring C only has about a 10 foot hole where an "enigine" flew through. How does 2% of the plane's weight bust through three rings of the Pentagon while the other 98% dissappears? There are virtually no markings on the lawn where the "plane" crashed into and large spools of cables at the crash site are untouched where they should've been destroyed with the impact of the plane. Eyewitnesses on the ground reported hearing a piercing jet engine as the Pentagon exploded. All evidence shows that a missile was fired into the Pentagon. Here is a link complete with pictures, diagrams and explanations of facts and what the Administraion says and why the two don't match:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm


I didn't have to watch any films, or listen to any government reports, because I watched the plane come in and hit the Pentagon.

I was in the parking lot.

If that wasn't an airliner, you can screw me in the ass.

[Tinfoil Hat]

But, but, what about my 1999 $20 bill!!!???

[/tinfoil hat]

:rolleyes:

Hey! Thats my Tinfoil hat!

*Snatches*

I would add something else:

Aircraft - whether small planes, military fighters (with the exception of the A-10) and commerical airliners are much flimsier than they were in the past.

Most aircraft are so flimsy that major areas of their outer surface are lettered with signs that say "NO STEP" because if you step on them, you'll go through.

Most of this material is either lightweight composites (plastic) or thin aluminum.

The jets that hit that day were moving at over 400 knots - the usual speed limit in a TRACON (terminal radar approach control area around an airport) is 250 knots unless you are transiting the area at high altitude.

Crashes at that speed usually result in complete demolition of the aircraft, and if the plane has enough fuel (the planes were all nearly full) the remaining plastic and metal burns down to virtually nothing.

At that sort of speed, if the plane is small, you don't get a crater - you don't even get a fire - you may or may not get an explosion, but you will find pieces of the plane smaller than your finger scattered over several square miles. Nothing larger.

Remember the Valujet crash in Florida? They couldn't even find pieces of the engine. Similar speed, and an airliner.

I've even seen helicopters (made of heavier aluminum armor, titanium plate, and kevlar panels) hit the ground, burst into flames, and inside of 10 minutes, there are puddles of aluminum here and there on the ground - but nothing recognizable as engine or rotor blades or even the people who were inside - the bones are burned to a crisp. JP-4 burns hot enough to completely carbonize even your bones in that time - the rescuers are going to have a hard time finding any remains.

If that wasn't an airliner, you can screw me in the ass.


Are you somehow implying that conspiracy theorists here would indulge in you surrendering your balloon knot?

Hey! Thats my Tinfoil hat! *Snatches*
NOOOOOOOOOO!

The Orbital Mind Rays! They are forcing me to stop monitoring NS and WORK!

Make them stop! Make them stop!

I Need my Tinfoil Hat!

Oh, wait... I still have my Propellor Beanie. I'm OK now. But I have this intense urge to watch Science Fiction TV... :p

Probably a stupid question but here goes, where did the plane go after it hit the Pentagon? there simply wasn't enough debris. I'm not a plane person but do these sort of planes have black boxes or have I just seen too many movies? :D

Probably a stupid question but here goes, where did the plane go after it hit the Pentagon? there simply wasn't enough debris. I'm not a plane person but do these sort of planes have black boxes or have I just seen too many movies? :D

There was an intense fire from thousands of gallons of JP-4.

The plane parts melted down into puddles of aluminum. I've seen the puddles.

I've also see quite a few aircraft and helicopter accidents. If there's a high speed impact (400 knots +) or a large fire, there's usually not much left.

You can have a fire at the airport, and have some of the plane remain, because the fire department with the right kind of equipment for that large of a fire is on site. There was nothing like that at the Pentagon.

Once again, I was in the parking lot and watched the plane hit.

There was an intense fire from thousands of gallons of JP-4.

The plane parts melted down into puddles of aluminum. I've seen the puddles.

I've also see quite a few aircraft and helicopter accidents. If there's a high speed impact (400 knots +) or a large fire, there's usually not much left.

You can have a fire at the airport, and have some of the plane remain, because the fire department with the right kind of equipment for that large of a fire is on site. There was nothing like that at the Pentagon.

Once again, I was in the parking lot and watched the plane hit.

thanks for the explanation

Regardless of the actual event, those in power 'chose' to ignore certain essential aspects of homeland security. Clinton forced his cabinet to meet in regards to threats and dealt with them. Bush had plenty of chances to dissolve this plan. How was it that we know that these people had been in the country for at most a decade? Were we already following them?

The message is still crystal clear, look who benefits from 9/11? Oil Millionaires, Straussians in the gov't (neocons) and a wilting GOP party. If you want an answer to who was responsible look to those who profit from this.
Isn't the fact that Britain and America were already mobolizing prior to 9/11 proof enough to say that some sort of event was about to be forced onto the world?

Those who stand by Bush and are not millionaires really ought to reflect upon their own values. What makes you a republican? Do you actually know what the GOP stands for in reference to a platform? Do you know what it means to be a democrat? Don't let Fox News supply your opinion; don't let this fictitious war against Islam cloud YOUR judgement. The real enemies do exist within the homeland, but they are far more visible than you can imagine.

You people are all paranoid.

Regardless of the actual event, those in power 'chose' to ignore certain essential aspects of homeland security. Clinton forced his cabinet to meet in regards to threats and dealt with them. Bush had plenty of chances to dissolve this plan. How was it that we know that these people had been in the country for at most a decade? Were we already following them?


Was Bush in charge for the decade prior to 9-11? Oh, I see, that was Clinton.

And was Clinton offered Bin Laden? Why, yes! But he didn't take him. Did we know since 1993 that they wanted to do the World Trade Center? Yes? Who was President then? Clinton!

Was anyone rounded up? No.

The hijackers were in the US for 2 or more years prior to the operation. That means they arrived in the last year of the Clinton administration. If Clinton and his cabinet were so dealing with it, I guess they must have intentionally let these guys go.

Was Bush in charge for the decade prior to 9-11? Oh, I see, that was Clinton.

And was Clinton offered Bin Laden? Why, yes! But he didn't take him. Did we know since 1993 that they wanted to do the World Trade Center? Yes? Who was President then? Clinton!

Was anyone rounded up? No.

The hijackers were in the US for 2 or more years prior to the operation. That means they arrived in the last year of the Clinton administration. If Clinton and his cabinet were so dealing with it, I guess they must have intentionally let these guys go.
what would the charge be for the people who were "rounded up"?

Did you think this up all by yourself?
Or have a million other people been saying this since it happened?
Let me give you a clue. You didnt think it up.


And by the way......

NOTHING ON THE INTERNET IS CREDIBLE. THE ANNONIMITY OF THE THING IS WHAT MAKES IT SO APPEALING TO EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE. SO ANY AND ALL OF THE SOURCES YOU POSTED ARE WORTH ABSOLUTELY DICK!

what would the charge be for the people who were "rounded up"?

At best, some of them could have been had on immigration charges.

Unless you could read their minds, you couldn't charge the rest with legally entering the US to take classes - and there's not a law that says you can't take a flight class (there weren't any restrictions then).

You people are all paranoid.
You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you...

FNORD! FNORD! All Hail Discordia! I know nothing of the Illumanati! Leave me alone! AAAAAAAHHHH!

Did you think this up all by yourself?
Or have a million other people been saying this since it happened?
Let me give you a clue. You didnt think it up.


And by the way......

NOTHING ON THE INTERNET IS CREDIBLE. THE ANNONIMITY OF THE THING IS WHAT MAKES IT SO APPEALING TO EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE. SO ANY AND ALL OF THE SOURCES YOU POSTED ARE WORTH ABSOLUTELY DICK!

along with your cap loving nonscence of a response.

At best, some of them could have been had on immigration charges.

Unless you could read their minds, you couldn't charge the rest with legally entering the US to take classes - and there's not a law that says you can't take a flight class (there weren't any restrictions then).

Thas the major problem, Clinton had reports of possible attacks (many of which were probably wild goose chases) which were passed onto Bush and Bush decided it wasn't a major thing and now we have the benefit of hindsight.

Until the Bushies came in it was internationally Illegal to go into soverign nations and arrest anyone you felt like, I guess you and Bush feel that ignoring international law is the right thing to do. Doesn't that make us terrorist in our own right? I thought Christianity did away with Hamurabbian Code.

I forgot, I thought the hijackers were Saudi's. Do you know what would piss me off enough to blow up some buildings? Seeing Bush money in the hands of warlords that give nothing to their people and let them starve while the Saudi royal family rapes, tortures, murders dissidents all with texas oil money. What more connection do we need?

I guess if the United States wanted to irritate not only a whole region, but create a general hatred by an entire religion I guess they have done that.

Anyone that isn't skeptical about this is either ignorant or has an agenda.

Did GW plan 911?

That retarded conspiracy theory is so lame that even most of France rejects it. For fuck's sake, just given the known timelines on when the terrorists entered the country you would need to assume that he put the wheels in motion even before he got elected under the assumption that he would eke out a win with a sub-majority percent of the popular vote.


However, did Georgie-boy take advantage of 9-11 to push through every single bit of his agenda that he could pull out of his ass, wipe clean, and get in front of Congress? You bet he did. As would ANY party when presented with one of those very few golden moments when the people put aside their natural suspicion of crooks.... errr, politicians.... hand them carte blanche, and turn around with their rumps in the air willing to take whatever gets shoved in if only they get made feel a bit safer again.

Of course it was planned by the Bush Administration. 9/11 is equivalent to the burning of the Reichstag in the early 1930s, which gave Hitler the excuse to consolidate his power and assemble a totalitarian one-party dictatorship.

Until the Bushies came in it was internationally Illegal to go into soverign nations and arrest anyone you felt like, I guess you and Bush feel that ignoring international law is the right thing to do.

I guess that's why Clinton tried to go into Somalia with the Rangers and arrest Aidid.

I love the Clinton is innocent, Bush is guilty crap above...They were both asleep at the wheel people... :rolleyes:


Second point, the twin towers were unique in that most of their strucutral support was located on the outside wall and the interior core. Based on survivors reports the planes pentrated into the core. This ment that a large part of the supportive structure was destroyed with the rest under the strain of excessive heat (and likley a good deal of the heat protection had been sheared off on the interior walls also.)

In the end the strain and the heat 'softened' (not melted) enough of the steel supports to cause a cataclysmic failure. Primarily because the weight of the building above the impact locations began collapsing the levels below and then collapsed themselves when they hit the earth at speed.

Anyway, I have to go to my Masonic Lodge and plan the take over of the world so bye...

Of course it was planned by the Bush Administration. 9/11 is equivalent to the burning of the Reichstag in the early 1930s, which gave Hitler the excuse to consolidate his power and assemble a totalitarian one-party dictatorship.

Given that no one in the military or government can keep their mouths shut about anything (a historical truth), how could such a conspiracy succeed, and not have some guy on CNN spilling the beans and selling a book?

Anyway, I have to go to my Masonic Lodge and plan the take over of the world so bye...

my sons are in Demolay... I will tell them to hurry their plans along as well

my sons are in Demolay... I will tell them to hurry their plans along as well

Don't forget, we have a meeting Saturday night at the lodge...

Given that no one in the military or government can keep their mouths shut about anything (a historical truth), how could such a conspiracy succeed, and not have some guy on CNN spilling the beans and selling a book?

Traitor Roosevelt was able to pull off Pearl Harbor, so why not Bush?

Traitor Roosevelt was able to pull off Pearl Harbor, so why not Bush?

Because our society today leaks like a sieve compared to the days of FDR. You could keep a secret in those days (although I don't believe the FDR - Pearl Harbor thing).

Today, it's impossible to keep a secret, especially something big.

Traitor Roosevelt was able to pull off Pearl Harbor, so why not Bush?

which theory is this one? The one were Churchill had the Royal Navy have its carriers bomb Pearl Harbor, or the one were Roosevelt knew all along the Japanese would attack there and what day and ordered the fleet to remain in harbor to get hit?

Completely without basis in either case

which theory is this one? The one were Churchill had the Royal Navy have its carriers bomb Pearl Harbor, or the one were Roosevelt knew all along the Japanese would attack there and what day and ordered the fleet to remain in harbor to get hit?

Completely without basis in either case
Even if true, it remains that in those days you could keep secrets. The media would never publish things they do now.

Today, they'll publish stuff that isn't fact checked, is faked, is only from one anonymous source, and they'll say it's all true. Every half-baked employee who ever hears a secret is anxious to peddle it for money - a book, a quick interview on Larry King...

You couldn't have the massive conspiracy in the US today. Someone would talk.

Don't forget, we have a meeting Saturday night at the lodge... FNORD! FNORD!

"The residents will enter here, through the hall of whirling knives..."

"We want an apartment block, not an abbitoir!"

"(FNORD!)"

"Well, You've got the job then..."

this may already have been said but raghead? :eek:

I hope this isnt typical of american views on arabic people?

this may already have been said but raghead? :eek:

I hope this isnt typical of american views on arabic people?

Depends on which American you're talking to.

Hadji is common parlance for a friendly Arab (used by US military)
Tango is common parlance for an unfriendly Arab (used by US military)

Not used to their faces, though.

What do you neo-Marxist conspiritors have to say to the people who actually SAW IT HAPPEN?!?! Your going to dismiss the thousands of eye-witnesses, some of who are actually in here, and say that "You may have been confused", or the classic, "It was fast and you couldnt see the detail". When are you going to get off this blind loyalty to the anti-American club and spare the victims families the pain. Its like telling a Jewish mother that her child was sent to a concentration camp by the Americans, but dont worry, we just needed support for the war, you understand, dont you? Give me a break and lay it to rest.

Even if true, it remains that in those days you could keep secrets. The media would never publish things they do now.

Today, they'll publish stuff that isn't fact checked, is faked, is only from one anonymous source, and they'll say it's all true. Every half-baked employee who ever hears a secret is anxious to peddle it for money - a book, a quick interview on Larry King...

You couldn't have the massive conspiracy in the US today. Someone would talk.

neither were true, but both theories surfaced postwar. The sheer volume of documents on Pearl Harbor show that it happened just as history says. Gordon Prange's book "At Dawn we slept" looks at every single one of the conspiracy theories on Pearl Harbor and disproves every one (with a lot of irritation, he was not amused)

The US can't even keep nuclear secrets from the Russians (back in the 1940s) or Chinese (present day)... so the whole genre of conspiracy theories always struck me as pretty silly

which theory is this one? The one were Churchill had the Royal Navy have its carriers bomb Pearl Harbor, or the one were Roosevelt knew all along the Japanese would attack there and what day and ordered the fleet to remain in harbor to get hit?

Completely without basis in either case

Completely without basis only if you choose to ignore the massive amount of evidence. Read, for example, A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson; Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett; Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland; The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Robert O. Theobald; Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Harry Elmer Barnes; Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 by Charles Callan Tansill; The New Dealer's War by Thomas Fleming; and The Shadows of Power by James Perloff.

Completely without basis only if you choose to ignore the massive amount of evidence. Read, for example, A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson; Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett; Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland; The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Robert O. Theobald; Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Harry Elmer Barnes; Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 by Charles Callan Tansill; The New Dealer's War by Thomas Fleming; and The Shadows of Power by James Perloff.

I have read John Toland, and he certainly didn't support your statement. Neither did Stevenson, who has since been proven to have exaggerated some.

Gordon Prange completely disproved the conspiracy theory nonsense with by reading the original Ultra intercepts cited by two of your authors and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy theorists simply don't have any facts whatsever on their side. They merely have speculation. Prange took on Stinnet directly, quoted his work, and disproved him point by point. James Dunnigan has also looked at Stinnet and shown that he was seriously in error every step of the way.

"At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange is considered by serious historians to be THE book on Pearl Harbor because of its careful and thorough scholarship
Its also a good read and should be easy to find at any Public library in the US, and probably available elsewhere easily enough.

which theory is this one? The one were Churchill had the Royal Navy have its carriers bomb Pearl Harbor, or the one were Roosevelt knew all along the Japanese would attack there and what day and ordered the fleet to remain in harbor to get hit?

Completely without basis in either case
Hey, you're forgetting the one where the Illumanati helped the Nazis build a Flying Saucer base in the Antarctic/Moon/Atlantis....

I have read John Toland, and he certainly didn't support your statement. Neither did Stevenson, who has since been proven to have exaggerated some.

Gordon Prange completely disproved the conspiracy theory nonsense with by reading the original Ultra intercepts cited by two of your authors and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy theorists simply don't have any facts whatsever on their side. They merely have speculation. Prange took on Stinnet directly, quoted his work, and disproved him point by point. James Dunnigan has also looked at Stinnet and shown that he was seriously in error every step of the way.

"At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange is considered by serious historians to be THE book on Pearl Harbor because of its careful and thorough scholarship
Its also a good read and should be easy to find at any Public library in the US, and probably available elsewhere easily enough.

I'll check it out. I'd recommend the book by Stinnett, though. Not only is he a pro-FDR World War II Navy veteran, but he spent over sixteen years researching his book, and many of his sources were obtained from the government through the Freedom of Information Act.

This makes no sence, especially the PNAC thing. It's a non profit organization, so how will that help the government in any way at all? Just a question.

All these conspiracy theories are basicly crap. Before 9-11, you simply couldn't shoot down a hijacked plane because ramming a plane into a building on purpose was unheard of. Hijackers usually had demands. Plus, they prefered to blow up the plane and nothing else.

The FDR thing. Sure, we figured out about the Japanese attack. It was too late then. They didn't have cell-phones or internet back then. It took a while for a message to cross a few thousand miles of ocean. Pearl Harbor recieved the message a few hours too late. Plus, people are dumber nowadays. You can say that Bush had nothing to do with 9-11 only because he does not exist and millions would believe you, even if you don't have any "evidence", faked or not.

All these conspiracy theories are basicly crap. <snip>
No they're not. I know for a FACT that Elvis and JFK planned 9/11 YEARS ago over Peanut-butter/Bacon/quaalude sandwiches and Scotch. Marylin woke up and heard it all, so she had to be silenced. As did all the members of the Kennedy clan that were intelligent enough to be brought into the Illumaniti - right up to John John.

Elvis is still alive and is calling the shots from the Antarctic Nazi Moon base.

DON'T LISTEN TO ELVIS "MUSIC"!! It contains subliminal programmming engrams that affect your Body Theatans and keep you from achieveng "Clear"!

Heeey - wait! Put that Jacket away... HELP! ETHICS! OpSec! The Psychs are here! Help! ... Anybody!?!? :eek:

:D :D :D

which theory is this one? The one were Churchill had the Royal Navy have its carriers bomb Pearl Harbor, or the one were Roosevelt knew all along the Japanese would attack there and what day and ordered the fleet to remain in harbor to get hit?

Completely without basis in either case


Royal Navy bombing Pearl Harbor? That's actually a conspiracy theory? Iy, iy, iy. That is so ridiculous it hurts. It's amazing what people think of.


Ordered the fleet to remain in the harbor and get hit? That's crackpot too. Those ships were usually in Pearl Harbor. In fact, our carriers were suppose to be there too...but by the grace of God they were caught in a storm on the way back from excercises...that's the only reason we survived in the Pacific.


It is however believed extensively by historians that Churchill did not warn the US to get the US into the war. Churchhill's response to Pearl Harbor was this: "Thank God. We've won the war."


It's actually interesting to note that the Japanese warned Washington an hour before it attacked Pearl Harbor. Something about honor...anyway the message was relayed to Pearl Harbor but getting a message across 3000 miles of land and 2500 miles of sea in less than an hour in those days was kind of difficult...the message got there too late.

Zombie post!

Cue the theremin!

Okay...I have an insane theory here about 9/11...I know it's going to be laughed at and ridiculed...but at least hear me out...

See...there is this terrorist group...mostly unheard of until 9/11. They hate America because where they live totally sucks and they need someone to blame it on. Instead of blaming their goverment and their own people they go blame a country all the way across the world.

Under the disguise of fighting for freedom and wanting to support their poor great aunt and their sister who is orphaned because their parents died in a car accident with some Jewish guy (which is why they hate Israel) they pour millions of dollars into figuring out how to kill as many innocent people as possible (rather than helping their poor dog and their dad's concubine...er wait...great aunt and sister).

So they go around the world blowing up themselves and accidentally taking hundreds along with them they decide to go hit the big evil America to make them pay for the fact their people are dying because of poor economic policy...wait...so...their families are dying of hunger yet they pour money into blowing up other people? Is this like a form of birth control or something?...anyway getting back on track...

This terrorist organization decides to fly a few planes into some buildings. Most surely if they kill a few thousand people the 290,000,000 people of the United States, a nation that has fought two world wars, the Koreans, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and countless other "little" fights inbetween having losts hundreds of thousands of people...would just fall in complete and utter terror. And if it didn't kill a few thousand people would at least get their dog's squeaky toy and their mother some food...yeah...those thousands of dollars that went into training 20 people in a terrorist camp, boarding them for years upon years, giving them expensive flight training, and then finally plane tickets was well worth it.

Does anyone see a pattern in this theory yet?


Now for eight years...President Clinton sat on his hands. I know...unthinkable! Ignoring terrorist threats...letting terrorist leaders slip by...but of course it's all Bush's fault. He was a year in office and it's his fault he didn't anticipate a terrorist attack... forget the ten prior years. It's all his fault in one year and it's all because he wanted power! Yes! Power and oil we'd never get our hands on!

So 19 of these twenty freedom fires manage to take over civilian aircraft, ram one into one of the biggest buildings in the world as a show of skill (mmhmm...) and then another into the pentagon...and then another into another building just as big as the first (can we say copycat?)...and finally the last one is crashed into the ground by evil Americans trying to save hundreds of their fellow infidels (who by chance have never heard of this terrorist organization, mind their own buisness, and are just living their lives...evil!).


I know it's insane...but hey...it's just a theory...

Pssst

You forgot the bit of your theory that goes:

"Then, when Clinton acted on the intelligence and tried to whack the leader of the terrorist organization, the opposing party said 'hey! What the fuck sort of grandstanding is that? Please keep the topic of discussion on your penis where it belongs!' "

and the bit that goes:

"Bush, although only in office a year, had been handed all the updated intel on the terrorist organization - including the proof of their responsibility for the Stark bombing which had been verified a couple of short weeks before his innauguration. He also was given briefing papers with vaguely named titles as "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside the US". He, of course, can be excused for doing nothing becuase he was still convinced that penises were the subject of the day. Now after the attack he realized that the issue was indeed serious and determined to get the big baddy 'dead or alive', until a eyar later when he said that he didn't care about where the big baddy was. Oddly enough, it turned out that the Terrorists were pretty damn sneaky and that eliminating them even with fairly global cooperation was a hell of a lot tougher than it seemed.

but as long as people would keep blaming Clinton for everything, well then what the fuck would it matter if GW didn't succeed for years and years in getting Big Baddy either."



There, now it's a bit more complete. Which is to say - spread the fucking blame around to EVERYWHERE it belongs. Becase little bits of it belong in a lot of fucking in-boxes.

See...there is this terrorist group...mostly unheard of until 9/11. They hate America because where they live totally sucks and they need someone to blame it on. Instead of blaming their goverment and their own people they go blame a country all the way across the world.

Ah, the "See," addiction, introduces a level of arrogance and ignorance to the arguement.

wow, that is pretty crazy, that isn't at all the motive of Al Qaeda (fuck the spelling) for attacking the U.S. Maybe you should read up on history and you'll understand.

Under the disguise of fighting for freedom and wanting to support their poor great aunt and their sister who is orphaned because their parents died in a car accident with some Jewish guy (which is why they hate Israel) they pour millions of dollars into figuring out how to kill as many innocent people as possible (rather than helping their poor dog and their dad's concubine...er wait...great aunt and sister).

Awww, nice tangent that makes no sense. Amazing run-on, I'll give you credit for that.

So they go around the world blowing up themselves and accidentally taking hundreds along with them they decide to go hit the big evil America to make them pay for the fact their people are dying because of poor economic policy...wait...so...their families are dying of hunger yet they pour money into blowing up other people? Is this like a form of birth control or something?...anyway getting back on track...

That would be a good idea

This terrorist organization decides to fly a few planes into some buildings. Most surely if they kill a few thousand people the 290,000,000 people of the United States, a nation that has fought two world wars, the Koreans, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and countless other "little" fights inbetween having losts hundreds of thousands of people...would just fall in complete and utter terror. And if it didn't kill a few thousand people would at least get their dog's squeaky toy and their mother some food...yeah...those thousands of dollars that went into training 20 people in a terrorist camp, boarding them for years upon years, giving them expensive flight training, and then finally plane tickets was well worth it.
Yeah, why the hell would they do a thing like that? It just doesn't make sense.

Does anyone see a pattern in this theory yet?
You are incapable of writing a non-run-on sentence?

Now for eight years...President Clinton sat on his hands. I know...unthinkable! Ignoring terrorist threats...letting terrorist leaders slip by...but of course it's all Bush's fault. He was a year in office and it's his fault he didn't anticipate a terrorist attack... forget the ten prior years. It's all his fault in one year and it's all because he wanted power! Yes! Power and oil we'd never get our hands on!
Maybe Clinton "sat on his hands" because he was too busy dealing with Republicans and the "liberal media" tearing him apart over a blow job. Anyways, we had all the warning signs of a terrorist attack that it could have been prevented but in the words of White House spokesman Scott McClellan I'm not going to "rehash old arguements."

So 19 of these twenty freedom fires manage to take over civilian aircraft, ram one into one of the biggest buildings in the world as a show of skill (mmhmm...) and then another into the pentagon...and then another into another building just as big as the first (can we say copycat?)...and finally the last one is crashed into the ground by evil Americans trying to save hundreds of their fellow infidels (who by chance have never heard of this terrorist organization, mind their own buisness, and are just living their lives...evil!).


I know it's insane...but hey...it's just a theory...

That is a pretty big feat because they were described by the pilots that trained them as "unskilled." And we all need a hero story, right? Something good has to emerge from all this, the same way somebody has to profit from the war in Iraq! Your use of ellipses is just astounding.

Several details also bother me about 9/11:

1- The attacks on the twin tower from a startegic point of view should be see as a failure, they had the opportunity to kill about 80 000 people. But because they striked before office hour most people where'nt at work, so less than 4 000 died (thanks god)

2- I've heard from many source you could'nt use a cell phone in airplane, the hero story on fligh 93 make me think, how could they, for so long, without any interuption.

3- A pilot here, who is considered like a national hero (thats an other story) said he could never crash is own big plane in a tower because these kind of plane lack too much of maneuvrability. He said he would need a gps/beeper inside the tower so an automatic pilot would help him locate/hit the tower. He is a really experienced pilot when compared to there terroriste wanna be who could'nt fly a cesna rigth

4-Why the terrorist did'nt simply took a fligth maroc/USA instead of having all the assle of preparing there plan from inside the US and leaving so many trace in the process

5-Why the terrorist where so ligthly armed, many compagny like glock make plastic gun now

6- Bin Laden is an old US friend, even if he was a justification for Afganistan and Iraq invasion, he does'nt seem to be a priority anymore.

7- If Al-Quada and muslim where so much organised, why did'nt they made another attack since 9/11. They have much more reason to do one (see Afganistan and Iraq invasion) and they could easelly board a crew of 5 peoples in a foreign country airport in direction of USA.

8- The US administration keep us on the edge by keeping us in a state of emergency because of terrorrist attack, while nothing really happen. Considering the level of animosity muslim show to USA these days, and how easy it would be (with the tons of drugs and illegal immigrate how pass your border every days, passing bomb or gaz should'nt be a problem. Or just look at the fear the Washington gunner cause some time ago with only a rifle)

Several details also bother me about 9/11:

2- I've heard from many source you could'nt use a cell phone in airplane, the hero story on fligh 93 make me think, how could they, for so long, without any interuption.



To answer this one for you, mobile signals are weak. A such, to service an area they set out towers in a grid to handle the load with some overlap between the grids to eliminate dead spots. Eace grid element (or 'cell') is handled by a tower and as you drive along your handset negotiates connectivity with the strongest available signal that has bandwidth to take your call.

Now, at ground level this is all well and good. But when you stop and realize that this signal strength is limited in all directional axes you can think of each tower having a sphere of connectivity around it where the overlap between grid elements occurs along only two axes. In a plane you may be cruising high enough to completely be above each sphere of connectivity, or you may be skipping through the tops of the spheres giving you momentary connectivity, or you could be low to the ground where your connectivity is on par with that right at ground level.


And the plane coming across Pennsylvania was NOT at cruising altitude. It had descended to low-altitude flight in an attempt to evade detection, thus cell connectivity was fine for the passengers.

Believe it or not, my father believes the administration knew about it ahead of time.

Believe it or not, my father believes the administration knew about it ahead of time.
Does he wear a tin foil hat and play the theremin?

It's perfectly feasible that the terrorists were too stupid to kill the government instead of civilians. I do think that the US government is taking advantage of people's fear to restrict liberty though.

Does he wear a tin foil hat and play the theremin?

Don't dis my father. He's a highly intelligent man. And there are political reasons the Bush admin. would let this happen. I don't believe they knew. I just think the FBI and CIA are morons.

Does he wear a tin foil hat and play the theremin?
What's wrong with theremin? :confused:

Don't dis my father. He's a highly intelligent man. And there are political reasons the Bush admin. would let this happen. I don't believe they knew. I just think the FBI and CIA are morons.

Oh, I'm not dissing him. If he believes that, he's got company. It just sounds weird to me.

In any situation where I have to make a judgment on a government conspiracy, I only have to remember the quality of the average government worker, and their inability to keep their mouths shut.

You couldn't get that plan together - not enough smart people to put it together, and certainly someone (more than one someone) would run their mouth and we would all know about it before it happened.

:p well I believe in almost everything but let's just STFU and gather some supplies for END OF TEH MODERN WORLD and laugh them who didn't listen us :D

:p well I believe in almost everything but let's just STFU and gather some supplies for END OF TEH MODERN WORLD and laugh them who didn't listen us :D

Way ahead of you.

Alright, alright, alright...before you go off like "this asshole is fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theories," just hear me out, I'm not so sure about this myself, but there is a huge case pointing to the fact that 9/11 wasn't exactly what the Administration would like you to believe.

ok i read it... now i would like to say "this asshole is a fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theorist." These stories are of course are huge rumors spread by the opposition who are still pissed off that gore or kerry didnt win. <<and i know this is getting off topic>> but IF they did win we most likely would have been attacked and then we wouldn't have done much about worldwide terrorist organizations other than al quaida because ("They didnt do anything to us... boo hooo"). So in conclusion, stop listening to bill mahr and michael moore, (i would add john stewart, but i think he's hilarious) and go complain about unequal rights or savign trees or something.

Way ahead of you.
That's why you're so interested of Sweden and Swedish language? You're planning to move to a more neutral enviroment? ;)

To answer this one for you, mobile signals are weak. A such, to service an area they set out towers in a grid to handle the load with some overlap between the grids to eliminate dead spots. Eace grid element (or 'cell') is handled by a tower and as you drive along your handset negotiates connectivity with the strongest available signal that has bandwidth to take your call.

Now, at ground level this is all well and good. But when you stop and realize that this signal strength is limited in all directional axes you can think of each tower having a sphere of connectivity around it where the overlap between grid elements occurs along only two axes. In a plane you may be cruising high enough to completely be above each sphere of connectivity, or you may be skipping through the tops of the spheres giving you momentary connectivity, or you could be low to the ground where your connectivity is on par with that right at ground level.


And the plane coming across Pennsylvania was NOT at cruising altitude. It had descended to low-altitude flight in an attempt to evade detection, thus cell connectivity was fine for the passengers.

Nice explanation. You also forgot about the part that some of them used the inflight phone as well to make their calls and not just cell phones.

It's perfectly feasible that the terrorists were too stupid to kill the government instead of civilians. I do think that the US government is taking advantage of people's fear to restrict liberty though.

How is the government restricting liberty? I'm really getting tired of this utter nonsense.

I'm gonna go a little off topic.

I read throught the first 3-4 pages or so here, and was amazed. Amazed because a perfectly ordinary human being voices concern about something, which it admits not having any special knowledge about.
75% and upwards of the responses involved tinfoil and aliens, or rather, useless insults. I can't help but comment on that.

Have any of the authors of such posts ever been misinformed, mislead or lacked knowledge of something, or do you think you will ever be in that situation?
If the answer is yes, then consider in what manner you'd like to be addressed.
Let's for a moment assume you've only ever heard the term "Evolution" and have no real idea about how it works. On the other hand, you know plenty about genisis. Assuming you'd have the brains to some day ask your peers what the deal is with this evolution thing, would you rather be set straight in an intelligent fashion, or just have petty insults thrown at you?

If you can dismiss something as a conspiracy theory, it must mean you know why it is wrong. Thus, if someone asks you if this or that conspiracy theory is true, why the hell don't you break down the subject into something he can comprehend, and explain it thoroughly?

Ever heard the good old saying "There's no such thing as stupid questions, only stupid answers"? Because you lot just proved it true yet again.

Deal with it mates. No human posess the sum of human knowledge. If you have a brain, you'll ask about the stuff you don't understand. There's no reason to insult inquisitive humans. Hold them in high regard, if anything. Because unlike you, they will help shed light on subjects that confuse many of their peers.

ok i read it... now i would like to say "this asshole is a fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theorist." These stories are of course are huge rumors spread by the opposition who are still pissed off that gore or kerry didnt win. <<and i know this is getting off topic>> but IF they did win we most likely would have been attacked and then we wouldn't have done much about worldwide terrorist organizations other than al quaida because ("They didnt do anything to us... boo hooo"). So in conclusion, stop listening to bill mahr and michael moore, (i would add john stewart, but i think he's hilarious) and go complain about unequal rights or savign trees or something.
First off, the thought that the "rumors" being spread by the Democratic party is more crazy than Bush planning 9/11, especially when there are photographs and video proving otherwise. You can't say they still would've happened and we can't say they wouldn't have happened if Bush wasn't appointed in 2000. So in conclusion, stop listening to Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilly and FOX News, (I would add Bush, but I think he's hilarious, all those stupid antics) and go complain about lowering taxes on the rich or saving the oil industry or something.

OK, if you dont think that Bush did want to attack Iraq as a fact, and that the worlds oil reserves are steadily declining, then by all means pretend they arent true if it keeps you happy.

Doesnt change the fact that Bush DID wish to attack Iraq (like how was Iraq connected to 9/11 anyway?) America DOES use a lot of oil and needs it and we ARE running out of the stuff which was the 'facts' i was referring to.

Wow-

If this thread and this post are representative of people against President Bus, he has nothing to worry about.

"Lets look at the facts here" ??? There are no facts, just purely biased and immature supposition.

You can't say they still would've happened and we can't say they wouldn't have happened if Bush wasn't appointed in 2000.

I absolutely agree with that. in saying it though, it's a coincidence how things shaped up the way the American government wanted it didnt it? Keep the American people scared so they'll keep a war monger like Bush (lets not forget his Dad's little skirmish in Iraq) in power.

Thats how you end up with threads like this. If you were a policeman and investigating a crime, wouldn't it be wiser to keep your outlook open, or just blindly insist one possible scenario just couldnt have happened?

Obviously none of us will ever know what really went on, but consdering the prize for the taking, I wouldnt discount any consipracy theory at least for the next few decades anyway.

I'm gonna go a little off topic.

I read throught the first 3-4 pages or so here, and was amazed. Amazed because a perfectly ordinary human being voices concern about something, which it admits not having any special knowledge about.
75% and upwards of the responses involved tinfoil and aliens, or rather, useless insults. I can't help but comment on that.

Have any of the authors of such posts ever been misinformed, mislead or lacked knowledge of something, or do you think you will ever be in that situation?
If the answer is yes, then consider in what manner you'd like to be addressed.
Let's for a moment assume you've only ever heard the term "Evolution" and have no real idea about how it works. On the other hand, you know plenty about genisis. Assuming you'd have the brains to some day ask your peers what the deal is with this evolution thing, would you rather be set straight in an intelligent fashion, or just have petty insults thrown at you?

If you can dismiss something as a conspiracy theory, it must mean you know why it is wrong. Thus, if someone asks you if this or that conspiracy theory is true, why the hell don't you break down the subject into something he can comprehend, and explain it thoroughly?

Ever heard the good old saying "There's no such thing as stupid questions, only stupid answers"? Because you lot just proved it true yet again.

Deal with it mates. No human posess the sum of human knowledge. If you have a brain, you'll ask about the stuff you don't understand. There's no reason to insult inquisitive humans. Hold them in high regard, if anything. Because unlike you, they will help shed light on subjects that confuse many of their peers.
yeah im sure you would be right about this obviously ridiculous conspiracy theory

except that it has been thoroughly discussed and debunked on this very forum several times already and we dont have alot of patience for treating it seriously yet again.

No they're not. I know for a FACT that Elvis and JFK planned 9/11 YEARS ago over Peanut-butter/Bacon/quaalude sandwiches and Scotch. Marylin woke up and heard it all, so she had to be silenced. As did all the members of the Kennedy clan that were intelligent enough to be brought into the Illumaniti - right up to John John.

Elvis is still alive and is calling the shots from the Antarctic Nazi Moon base.

DON'T LISTEN TO ELVIS "MUSIC"!! It contains subliminal programmming engrams that affect your Body Theatans and keep you from achieveng "Clear"!

Heeey - wait! Put that Jacket away... HELP! ETHICS! OpSec! The Psychs are here! Help! ... Anybody!?!? :eek:

:D :D :D

this post borders on brilliant, you should keep it to post the next time this topic comes up. it made me giggle.

yeah im sure you would be right about this obviously ridiculous conspiracy theory

except that it has been thoroughly discussed and debunked on this very forum several times already and we dont have alot of patience for treating it seriously yet again.

But how can you debunk it when none of us know what went on? .. unless of course you know for certain what did transpire.

I think you really just proved the thrust of what The Similized world was saying.

the phraze "you can't educate bacon" could be used by both sides here ;)

Al Gore and a cabal of rabid fem-lib-tree huggers engineered 9/11 to bring out the worst in GWB, believing that his reaction would cause the masses to arise and make the world a better place.

What a bunch of deluded fools!

Al Gore and a cabal of rabid fem-lib-tree huggers engineered 9/11 to bring out the worst in GWB, believing that his reaction would cause the masses to arise and make the world a better place.

What a bunch of deluded fools!
lol, I like that, and the masses will rise, take a look at my other thread, or go here:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

5-Why the terrorist where so ligthly armed, many compagny like glock make plastic gun now

Do you always beleive anti-gun agitprop? Glock makes polymer-framed guns. There's still quite a bit of metal involved in the actual bang-bang part of the gun. Covering metal in plastic does not allow it to pass through metal detectors. Sheeeit. Who the hell was it that started that stupid rumor anyway?

Al Gore and a cabal of rabid fem-lib-tree huggers engineered 9/11 to bring out the worst in GWB, believing that his reaction would cause the masses to arise and make the world a better place.

What a bunch of deluded fools!

A true conspiracy theorist would have to take that as a possible theory :eek:

I probably don't have enough time to chime in on this one, and i may have on similar threads, blah blah ....
just like to recommend to anyone who gives a sh*t to watch the Pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen" (Chris Carter) - and note release date of that episode. A little f*cking creepy.
Maybe someone already posted this, if so, i'll delete it later.
:eek:

this asshole is fucking crazy, retard conspiracy theories.

Exactly what I was thinking.

That's why you're so interested of Sweden and Swedish language? You're planning to move to a more neutral enviroment? ;)
I think that his presence here indicates movement to another state of mind - one where people bitch a lot about every little thing, even to a significantly polarizing degree, but no one really has to ante up much 'lest they just like to argue and google a lot.
Hmmm .... *looks around, shivers*

:eek:

omfg! That's pretty suprising stuff. does this mean Dubya's lying to the nation? that's not a smart Idea.

But how can you debunk it when none of us know what went on? .. unless of course you know for certain what did transpire.

I think you really just proved the thrust of what The Similized world was saying.
there are a series of thing put out as "proof" that something fishy happened. they have all been debunked many times. leaving only the "yeah but he couda" useless sort of speculation.

i could put forth the scenario that syniks used where its elvis and jfk planning it all. but without some proof to back it up, its just insane speculation.

A true conspiracy theorist would have to take that as a possible theory :eek:

Oh, I hope so! I'd love to be the author of a conspiracy theory that has real traction! How exciting!

See, anybody can do it.

there [sic] are a series of thing [sic] put out as "proof" that something fishy happened. they [sic] have all been debunked many times. [sic] leaving [sic] only the "yeah but he couda" useless sort of speculation.

Define "many times." And how does that differ from Bush's entire argument for invading Iraq? "yeah, he coulda gotten WMDs, he coulda been a threat..."

I have yet to see the evidence of the Pentagon being hit by a missile "debunked." (How I hate that word. Whoever made it up should be shot.)

Define "many times." And how does that differ from Bush's entire argument for invading Iraq? "yeah, he coulda gotten WMDs, he coulda been a threat..."

Because we didn't know where the Anthrax was and the fact that he required knowledge of where the weapons inspectors were going despite the fact that they were supposed to be surprised inspections....

I have yet to see the evidence of the Pentagon being hit by a missile "debunked." (How I hate that word. Whoever made it up should be shot.)

I think Whisper Legs already disspelled this.

Somehow, a conspiracy, while enticing to critics of Bush, doesn't strike me as likely. The US is hardly saintly, but somehow, even I must be skeptical of the claim that it would kill 3,000 of its own people. If things were that black and white, it would be a cakewalk proving to people that authority was unjustified.

Because we didn't know where the Anthrax was and the fact that he required knowledge of where the weapons inspectors were going despite the fact that they were supposed to be surprised inspections....

and that's why Bush wanted to invade Iraq the day after 9/11?


I think Whisper Legs already disspelled this.
I don't.

and that's why Bush wanted to invade Iraq the day after 9/11?

Since the anthrax wasn't fully disclosed, not even under 1441.... it was ONE and I repeat, ONE of the reasons we went in.

I don't.

Then nothing will.

there are a series of thing put out as "proof" that something fishy happened. they have all been debunked many times. leaving only the "yeah but he couda" useless sort of speculation.

i could put forth the scenario that syniks used where its elvis and jfk planning it all. but without some proof to back it up, its just insane speculation.

it all depends on what your idea of 'debunked' is. Just saying its been 'debunked' doesnt make it so, and just because some may believe they can doesnt mean they have.

And yes you could put forward that theory, but it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to what has happened over the past few years. there is certainly enough reason to be suspicious of the American governments motives based on the Bush administrations quest for power when you take a look at the global oil situation. I said all that before in this thread though so i wont repeat myself.

Since the anthrax wasn't fully disclosed, not even under 1441.... it was ONE and I repeat, ONE of the reasons we went in.
So...what were the other bullshit reasons?

Then nothing will.
If by
I didn't have to watch any films, or listen to any government reports, because I watched the plane come in and hit the Pentagon.

I was in the parking lot.

If that wasn't an airliner, you can screw me in the ass.
you mean "disprove" or whatever, I could just as easily sayI was in the parking lot and saw a jet launch a missile into the side, does it prove anything? No. I take photographic evidence and logic to be more credible than the biased word of one person.

If by
....
you mean "disprove" or whatever, I could just as easily sayI was in the parking lot and saw a jet launch a missile into the side, does it prove anything? No. I take photographic evidence and logic to be more credible than the biased word of one person.

You forgot all of this... or maybe you intentionally ignored it... whichever be the case, here you are:


I would add something else:

Aircraft - whether small planes, military fighters (with the exception of the A-10) and commerical airliners are much flimsier than they were in the past.

Most aircraft are so flimsy that major areas of their outer surface are lettered with signs that say "NO STEP" because if you step on them, you'll go through.

Most of this material is either lightweight composites (plastic) or thin aluminum.

The jets that hit that day were moving at over 400 knots - the usual speed limit in a TRACON (terminal radar approach control area around an airport) is 250 knots unless you are transiting the area at high altitude.

Crashes at that speed usually result in complete demolition of the aircraft, and if the plane has enough fuel (the planes were all nearly full) the remaining plastic and metal burns down to virtually nothing.

At that sort of speed, if the plane is small, you don't get a crater - you don't even get a fire - you may or may not get an explosion, but you will find pieces of the plane smaller than your finger scattered over several square miles. Nothing larger.

Remember the Valujet crash in Florida? They couldn't even find pieces of the engine. Similar speed, and an airliner.

I've even seen helicopters (made of heavier aluminum armor, titanium plate, and kevlar panels) hit the ground, burst into flames, and inside of 10 minutes, there are puddles of aluminum here and there on the ground - but nothing recognizable as engine or rotor blades or even the people who were inside - the bones are burned to a crisp. JP-4 burns hot enough to completely carbonize even your bones in that time - the rescuers are going to have a hard time finding any remains.

You forgot all of this... or maybe you intentionally ignored it... whichever be the case, here you are:
first off, thanks for showing me that...I guess I missed it! Second, the case he (I assume) makes may be true; I don't feel like looking up all the claims he makes because 1), it still makes no sense for an aircraft to disappear once it hits the ground, 2) It still doesn't explain how one large chunk of the plane--intact at first--crashes through 3 rings of the Pentagon and then vaporizes. It is contrary to all logical thinking and 3) The video freeze frames clearly do not show an aircraft flying into the Pentagon.

and that's why Bush wanted to invade Iraq the day after 9/11?
Actually he didn't. It wasn't even mentioned until over a year later.

first off, thanks for showing me that...I guess I missed it! Second, the case he (I assume) makes may be true; I don't feel like looking up all the claims he makes because 1), it still makes no sense for an aircraft to disappear once it hits the ground, 2) It still doesn't explain how one large chunk of the plane--intact at first--crashes through 3 rings of the Pentagon and then vaporizes. It is contrary to all logical thinking and 3) The video freeze frames clearly do not show an aircraft flying into the Pentagon.

First off, no problem. Second off, it does explain how the plane could virtually disappear. Third off, a plane going that speed would be able to bust through three walls before burning itself up quite easily. I don't know how fast it was going, but assuming it's around 600 mph (because commercial airliners are comparatively slow planes) that means the plane would be traveling 1/6 of a mile in a second - assuming my math is right, I don't have a calculator handy - prior to impact, so it could have definately been traveling fast enough to bust through a few walls before incinerating itself. Fourth off, that depends on what angle freeze frames you're looking at. Some are obviously going to look different than others, and some would more clearly resemble a plane than those used by your sources, who obviously want to seem more credible.

Actually he didn't. It wasn't even mentioned until over a year later.
Actually, he did.
"Later, on the evening of the 12th [September 12, 2001]...wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. 'Look,' he told us, 'I know you have a lot to do and all...but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way...'"
--Counterterrorism Advisor Richard Clarke

First off, no problem. Second off, it does explain how the plane could virtually disappear. Third off, a plane going that speed would be able to bust through three walls before burning itself up quite easily. I don't know how fast it was going, but assuming it's around 600 mph (because commercial airliners are comparatively slow planes) that means the plane would be traveling 1/6 of a mile in a second - assuming my math is right, I don't have a calculator handy - prior to impact, so it could have definately been traveling fast enough to bust through a few walls before incinerating itself. Fourth off, that depends on what angle freeze frames you're looking at. Some are obviously going to look different than others, and some would more clearly resemble a plane than those used by your sources, who obviously want to seem more credible.
Too bad there aren't other freeze frame videos to go by because the FBI confiscated the rest. And the piece that went through the three rings was an "engine" not the entire plane. Or did the entire plane vaporize except for an engine that somehow accelerated and punched through the three rings of the Pentagon? The initial hole in the Pentagon--even after collapse--isn't nearly big enough for a 757 to fit in. The lawn and the spools at the crash site were untouched, barely even burnt, no plane can vaporize that cleanly if planes can even vaporize at all.

Here's another site on aircraft and their ability to vaporize

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

Too bad there aren't other freeze frame videos to go by because the FBI confiscated the rest. And the piece that went through the three rings was an "engine" not the entire plane. Or did the entire plane vaporize except for an engine that somehow accelerated and punched through the three rings of the Pentagon?
There are many reasons why an engine might have made it through and the rest of the plane didn't. Material strength, propellant source versus simple inertia, etc.

The initial hole in the Pentagon--even after collapse--isn't nearly big enough for a 757 to fit in. The lawn and the spools at the crash site were untouched, barely even burnt, no plane can vaporize that cleanly if planes can even vaporize at all.
The above quote covers that, I'm not going to repeat it.

Here's another site on aircraft and their ability to vaporize

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

Posting source after source that is supportive of the claim that 9/11 was the result of a massive conspiracy doesn't support your claim as much as you think it does. Of course sites like that are going to say things that support the point they're trying to make. Find more general information or cite what happened in past instances that are similar, like the person I quoted has done. It makes for a much more believable argument.

There are many reasons why an engine might have made it through and the rest of the plane didn't. Material strength, propellant source versus simple inertia, etc.


The above quote covers that, I'm not going to repeat it.



Posting source after source that is supportive of the claim that 9/11 was the result of a massive conspiracy doesn't support your claim as much as you think it does. Of course sites like that are going to say things that support the point they're trying to make. Find more general information or cite what happened in past instances that are similar, like the person I quoted has done. It makes for a much more believable argument.
You're right, we should just go along with everything. Why make our lives harder? It doesn't matter if the countless thousands of people who died as a result of this attack and the inevitable invasion that followed died in a lie. Why would Big Brother lie to us? Big Brother loves you. Never question Big Brother. We've always been at war with East Asia and it's no use questioning that. Big Brother is going to tell you the full truth...always. We are told we are fighting a war so there will be peace, we are told that the war is peace. We are slaves to Big Brother yet they tell us it is freedom, so we believe it. The more you know about the lies of Big Brother the more it will trouble you, so it's best just to ignore it and live in all the lies you're told. Believe; that Big Brother loves you. War is peace, Ignorance is strength, Freedom is slavery. If you don't like it, then die. It's not fascism, it's neoconservatism!

You're right, we should just go along with everything. Why make our lives harder? It doesn't matter if the countless thousands of people who died as a result of this attack and the inevitable invasion that followed died in a lie. Why would Big Brother lie to us? Big Brother loves you. Never question Big Brother. We've always been at war with East Asia and it's no use questioning that. Big Brother is going to tell you the full truth...always. We are told we are fighting a war so there will be peace, we are told that the war is peace. We are slaves to Big Brother yet they tell us it is freedom, so we believe it. The more you know about the lies of Big Brother the more it will trouble you, so it's best just to ignore it and live in all the lies you're told. Believe; that Big Brother loves you. War is peace, Ignorance is strength, Freedom is slavery. If you don't like it, then die. It's not fascism, it's neoconservatism!

Hmmm... I remember implying anything remotely similar to that... wait, nevermind. If war were peace, the world would be happy all the time. War can bring peace, there's a difference. If ignorance is strength, why aren't you a body builder? If freedom is slavery, why am I not in North Korea, or at least locked in a small metallic cage with three holes and a rabid chipmunk gnawing at my throat?

Hmmm... I remember implying anything remotely similar to that... wait, nevermind. If war were peace, the world would be happy all the time. War can bring peace, there's a difference. If ignorance is strength, why aren't you a body builder? If freedom is slavery, why am I not in North Korea, or at least locked in a small metallic cage with three holes and a rabid chipmunk gnawing at my throat?
Have you read 1984? It gives an excellent explanations of these paradox mottos.

Hmmm... I remember implying anything remotely similar to that... wait, nevermind. If war were peace, the world would be happy all the time. War can bring peace, there's a difference. If ignorance is strength, why aren't you a body builder? If freedom is slavery, why am I not in North Korea, or at least locked in a small metallic cage with three holes and a rabid chipmunk gnawing at my throat?
wow :rolleyes:

Somehow, a conspiracy, while enticing to critics of Bush, doesn't strike me as likely. The US is hardly saintly, but somehow, even I must be skeptical of the claim that it would kill 3,000 of its own people. If things were that black and white, it would be a cakewalk proving to people that authority was unjustified.

I don't know if the gov't knew or not. Personally I think it was the fault of the morons who are supposed to be on top of these things. Lack of Intelligence. However, the idea that our gov't would kill 3000 of our own people isn't so far off. If it gets the job done, I wouldn't put it past them.

As I said, I just think they fucked up, but don't think our gov't is pure or beyond some of the things we believe would never be done.

I don't know if the gov't knew or not. Personally I think it was the fault of the morons who are supposed to be on top of these things. Lack of Intelligence. However, the idea that our gov't would kill 3000 of our own people isn't so far off. If it gets the job done, I wouldn't put it past them.

As I said, I just think they fucked up, but don't think our gov't is pure or beyond some of the things we believe would never be done.

Well, if they actually had staged 9/11 to cause a stir, why kill 2500 when 250 would have been just as effective? It doesn't really make sense, either way you look at it.

wow :rolleyes:

Hmmm, "wow" and a smily. I guess that is more profound than all that big brother rant.

Well, if they actually had staged 9/11 to cause a stir, why kill 2500 when 250 would have been just as effective? It doesn't really make sense, either way you look at it.
If you forgot, the "terrorists" struck at a time when most people weren't there yet, so your figures are wrong. Where and when else could they have attacked to kill only 250 Americans? If they had done it in the middle of the day the death toll would have been far more. It still makes sense, in fact it makes more sense now that you brought it up.

I dont believe it was staged, I believe it was allowed to happen, or in otherwords, they had no choice but to let it happen.

Whenever someone is selling a book; and it sounds a litttttle fishy; they are probably bullshitting you with an interesting theory as a means to sell their book. Whenever someone is selling you something, remain skepticle. The Bush Administration would be foolish to set all that up when it would be even sneakier and easier to rile up a bunch of Fundementalists and let them attack the country on their own, there is actually more proof for this argument than yours.

I believe it was "allowed" to happen because we needed a reason to invade the middle east, where 2/3 of the worlds Oil Supply Rests (a lot of it in Saudia Arabia). Why? Look at our deficit, our debt, and go read about Peak Oil, thats why. We needed these attacks otherwise, to put it in simple words, "we be fucked". We are competing for the last half of the worlds oil right now, and this war isnt about to get calmer. It will likely get worse as Islamic Fundementalism surges in numbers and other middle eastern countries decide they have had enough of us. Also, I wouldnt be suprised if a war with China was on the horizon in 10-15 years, because they are directly competing with us at this point and they view us as one of their main enemies as well. Saudia Arabia may claim to have enough oil to last the world for centuries more, but this is simply not the case, otherwise oil would be very cheap right now, and we wouldnt be going nuts trying to defend our pipelines in the middle east. And all this secrecy about the Administrations Energy Policy wouldnt be secret.

Basically my theory is the Bush Administration is doing what they can to ensure that we remain top-dog, and be the last surviving country that runs on fossile fuels. I dont agree people should have to die for reasources so yes, I dislike Bush and his whole administration. Syria or Iran is likely the next target of agression unless we find a way to set up a giant police station in Iraq and stablize the region, which is not likely. Sorry mothers, but a draft is a possiblity in the next 10 years.

If you forgot, the "terrorists" struck at a time when most people weren't there yet, so your figures are wrong. Where and when else could they have attacked to kill only 250 Americans? If they had done it in the middle of the day the death toll would have been far more. It still makes sense, in fact it makes more sense now that you brought it up.

Hmmm, I believe I see the problem. You're special. Let me explain something to you... you see, there's this big country called "The United States of America." Alright? And they have all these things called "cities," and "states." And in all these places they have these things called "landmarks" and "monuments" and these things called "people" frequent them. Now, these "people" could have been killed anywhere in America, not just at the Twin Towers. The terrorists didn't have to attack such a densely populated pair of buildings, or crash into both of them, or hit the Pentagon as well. They could have picked one, killed less people, and still had the same effect. Why overkill? And, if Republicans are such evil pro corporation rich white guys, why kill their own kind? Why not blow up ten crack houses or something?

Hmmm, I believe I see the problem. You're special. Let me explain something to you... you see, there's this big country called "The United States of America." Alright? And they have all these things called "cities," and "states." And in all these places they have these things called "landmarks" and "monuments" and these things called "people" frequent them. Now, these "people" could have been killed anywhere in America, not just at the Twin Towers. The terrorists didn't have to attack such a densely populated pair of buildings, or crash into both of them, or hit the Pentagon as well. They could have picked one, killed less people, and still had the same effect. Why overkill? And, if Republicans are such evil pro corporation rich white guys, why kill their own kind? Why not blow up ten crack houses or something?

They chose the Twin Towers because America is the worlds Economic Powerhouse (currently), and the towers stood for our Economic Power over the world, thats why they attacked that. The Pentagon stands for our military force, the most powerful in the world, same reason.

In otherwords, it would give not only Congress, but the American Public a reason to fund and fight the "war on terror" for years to come.

They chose the Twin Towers because America is the worlds Economic Powerhouse (currently), and the towers stood for our Economic Power over the world, thats why they attacked that. The Pentagon stands for our military force, the most powerful in the world, same reason.

In otherwords, it would give not only Congress, but the American Public a reason to fund and fight the "war on terror" for years to come.

You're jumping into a conversation confused, Nuclear. Read before you post. He's saying that the Bush White House plotted the attack, I was making a point that the Bush White House would have no reason to choose the targets that the terrorists chose, so to think that they thought up the plan is stupid.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

You're jumping into a conversation confused, Nuclear. Read before you post. He's saying that the Bush White House plotted the attack, I was making a point that the Bush White House would have no reason to choose the targets that the terrorists chose, so to think that they thought up the plan is stupid.
And I'm saying that Bush and his neoconservative pals over at the PNAC had a reason to invade the Middle East well before he was even appointed in 2000, and to think they would be telling us the full truth is stupid.

And I'm saying that Bush and his neoconservative pals over at the PNAC had a reason to invade the Middle East well before he was even appointed in 2000, and to think they would be telling us the full truth is stupid.

You still haven't explain why on Earth they would choose those targets. That's okay, though, I really don't expect you to, and if you do, your response will probably be incredible or ridiculous or mocking anyway.

Did you know that George W. was given $50,000 to invest in his first oil company, Arbusto, from James R. Bath, the Texas business representative for Salem bin Laden, Osama's older brother? Did you know that Bush met Bath while they both served in the Texas Air National Guard, and that both were suspended from flying in August and September 1972 for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination?"[which would have required drug testing]

That George H.W. Bush and the bin Laden family shared investments in the Carlyle Group, a Washington private equity firm specializing in buyouts of military contractors?

That FBI agents were told to back off an investigation of members of the bin Laden family suspected of terrorist connections shortly after George W. Bush took power?

That CIA director George Tenet gave the following warning to National Security Adviser Condoleeze Rice: "It is highly likely that a significant Al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Rice later said that 911 was a complete surprise to everyone.

That George W. was given $50,000 to invest in his first oil company, Arbusto, from James R. Bath, the Texas business representative for Salem bin Laden, Osama's older brother? Did you know that Bush met Bath while they both served in the Texas Air National Guard, and that both were suspended from flying in August and September 1972 for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination?"[which would have required drug testing]
*Gasp* They were both snorting cocaine? Oh, man, I smell conspiracy!

That George H.W. Bush and the bin Laden family shared investments in the Carlyle Group, a Washington private equity firm specializing in buyouts of military contractors?
They invested in the same company? How dare they!

That FBI agents were told to back off an investigation of members of the bin Laden family suspected of terrorist connections shortly after George W. Bush took power?
I'd love to see the source on that. I'm sure I'd get a good laugh.

That CIA director George Tenet gave the following warning to National Security Adviser Condoleeze Rice: "It is highly likely that a significant Al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Rice later said that 911 was a complete surprise to everyone.
Yeah, our intelligence services have been so slack as for vague adjectives like "highly likely," "near future," and "several" to be used in reports, not to mention noting the wrong terrorist organization, instead of our officials knowing the specifics. It really sucks that all those CIA funding cuts got through in the 90's, and that nothing was done during the 90's about all the shit that was happening then.

On the day of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the networks brought out an array of national security state intellectuals, usually ranging from the right to the far right, to explain the horrific events of September 11. The Fox Network presented former UN Ambassador and Reagan Administration apologist Jeane Kirkpatrick, who quickly rolled out a simplified version of Huntington's clash of civilizations, arguing that we were at war with Islam. :sniper:

On the afternoon of September 11, Ariel Sharon, leader of Israel, himself implicated in war crimes in Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in 1982, came on television to convey his regret, condolescences, and assurance of Israel's support in the war on terror. He called for a coalition against terrorism, which would contrast the free world with terrorism, representing the Good vs. the Bad, "humanity" vs. "the blood-thirsty," "the free world" against "the forces of darkness," who are trying to destroy "freedom" and our "way of life."

Curiously, the Bush Administration would take up the same tropes with Bush attacking the "evil" of the terrorists, using the word five times in his first statement on the September 11 terror assaults, and repeatedly portraying the conflict as a war between good and evil in which the U.S. was going to "eradicate evil from the world," "to smoke out and pursue... evil doers, those barbaric people." The semantically insensitive and dyslexic Bush administration also used cowboy metaphors, calling for bin Laden "dead or alive," and described the campaign as a "crusade," until he was advised that this term carried heavier historical baggage of earlier wars of Christians and Moslems. And the Pentagon at first named the war against terror "Operation Infinite Justice," until they were advised that only God could dispense "infinite justice," and that Americans and others might be disturbed about a war expanding to infinity.
The Palestinians are to blame for the attacks on september 11th!

I'm sure that Bush could pull otherways to screw the US besides 9/11. Maybe the government didn't handle the situation as it should've, making it look shady, but attacking the US isn't beneficial for those greedy dudes. They showed us we don't need to be attacked to be afraid, like in Iraq.

Why can't we just all forget about 9/11. I think we have thought about it enough, time to move on.

I'm sure that Bush could pull otherways to screw the US besides 9/11. Maybe the government didn't handle the situation as it should've, making it look shady, but attacking the US isn't beneficial for those greedy dudes. They showed us we don't need to be attacked to be afraid, like in Iraq.

Why can't we just all forget about 9/11. I think we have thought about it enough, time to move on.

The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, Michael Springman, told the programme: "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants.

"People who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington to Main State, to the Inspector General and to Diplomatic Security and I was ignored."

He added: "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists - recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets."

The US allegedly wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind eye to any terrorist connection - so long as America was safe.

The programme said the younger George Bush made his first million with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, who took over as head of the family after his father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968.

The Palestinians are to blame for the attacks.

Why can't we just all forget about 9/11.
Why should we?

That's why you're so interested of Sweden and Swedish language? You're planning to move to a more neutral enviroment? ;)

:p move to finland,Sweden sucks.
Even Conan O'Brian said that.

So have we concluded that this is a ridiculous argument yet?

So have we concluded that this is a ridiculous argument yet?

Apparently not! :D

it all depends on what your idea of 'debunked' is. Just saying its been 'debunked' doesnt make it so, and just because some may believe they can doesnt mean they have.

And yes you could put forward that theory, but it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to what has happened over the past few years. there is certainly enough reason to be suspicious of the American governments motives based on the Bush administrations quest for power when you take a look at the global oil situation. I said all that before in this thread though so i wont repeat myself.
your suggestion that oil could be a motive for staging 9/11 was just a suggestion. sure it could be a motive, that goes utterly nowhere in proving that 9/11 was planned by the bush administration.

now when we get to the invasion of iraq, i would love to know the real reason we went in. that whole "iraq is going to hit us any minute with their wmd" excuse was absurd from day 1. yeah it might have been oil; it might have been grudge; it might have been a desire to kick some middle east ass; it might have been the need to save face when we couldnt get bin laden. who knows? the answer to that has little to do with the origins of 9/11

Define "many times." And how does that differ from Bush's entire argument for invading Iraq? "yeah, he coulda gotten WMDs, he coulda been a threat..."

I have yet to see the evidence of the Pentagon being hit by a missile "debunked." (How I hate that word. Whoever made it up should be shot.)
ya know, darlin, i think that when you use a direct quote script like this site uses, the [sic] is implied.

the hole in the pentagon is debunked on snopes. take a look at it.

your suggestion that oil could be a motive for staging 9/11 was just a suggestion. sure it could be a motive, that goes utterly nowhere in proving that 9/11 was planned by the bush administration.

now when we get to the invasion of iraq, i would love to know the real reason we went in. that whole "iraq is going to hit us any minute with their wmd" excuse was absurd from day 1. yeah it might have been oil; it might have been grudge; it might have been a desire to kick some middle east ass; it might have been the need to save face when we couldnt get bin laden. who knows? the answer to that has little to do with the origins of 9/11

at the end of the day I totally agree, but the oil reserves do happen to coincidentally solve some not too distant energy problems for the states

iraq also has little to do with 9/11 - thought george bush obviously doesnt seem to realise that after what he said today

iraq also has little to do with 9/11 - thought george bush obviously doesnt seem to realise that after what he said today

I haven't heard this what did he say?

at the end of the day I totally agree, but the oil reserves do happen to coincidentally solve some not too distant energy problems for the states
not to fuel conspiracy theories but once the price of crude skyrocketed, dont you think the effort to get the iraqi oil pumping got shunted to the side?

bush's oilmen friends must be making huge profits right now. so why rush to keep the iraqi pipelines from getting bombed? it will just drive down the price of oil.

not to fuel conspiracy theories but once the price of crude skyrocketed, dont you think the effort to get the iraqi oil pumping got shunted to the side?


2 points for awful inadvertent pun :D

2 points for awful inadvertent pun :D

That was one nasty pun too Gataway! LOL

That was one nasty pun too Gataway! LOL

so bad I couldn't let it go

not to fuel conspiracy theories but once the price of crude skyrocketed, dont you think the effort to get the iraqi oil pumping got shunted to the side?

bush's oilmen friends must be making huge profits right now. so why rush to keep the iraqi pipelines from getting bombed? it will just drive down the price of oil.

maybe because its getting harder to find other sources of oil.

Today Bush basically said the Iraq war was justified since America was forced to attack after 9/11. why was it forced to attack iraq he didnt explain. obviously iraq attacked america in 9/11 though i dont know when the bush admin changed world history to make that a true fact.

No they're not. I know for a FACT that Elvis and JFK planned 9/11 YEARS ago over Peanut-butter/Bacon/quaalude sandwiches and Scotch. Marylin woke up and heard it all, so she had to be silenced. As did all the members of the Kennedy clan that were intelligent enough to be brought into the Illumaniti - right up to John John.

Elvis is still alive and is calling the shots from the Antarctic Nazi Moon base.

DON'T LISTEN TO ELVIS "MUSIC"!! It contains subliminal programmming engrams that affect your Body Theatans and keep you from achieveng "Clear"!

Heeey - wait! Put that Jacket away... HELP! ETHICS! OpSec! The Psychs are here! Help! ... Anybody!?!?
this post borders on brilliant, you should keep it to post the next time this topic comes up. it made me giggle.
I'm glad it only Borders on brilliant, otherwise the Illumaniti & SeaOrg will conspire to eliminate me. Please fold & check the back of the new $5 bill for details. :p

You still haven't explain why on Earth they would choose those targets. That's okay, though, I really don't expect you to, and if you do, your response will probably be incredible or ridiculous or mocking anyway.

The twins towers where the center of the attack, it is one of the biggest civil symbol that could hit Americans mind and it is located in a more democrat state (59%/40% last election). The first plane hit the very top of the tower long before office hour leaving time for people under it and from the second tower to get out, next plane hit near middle. not many people die when you see what could have happen if both plane would have hit the middle or if possible, more near the base of the tower at like 11 AM or 3 PM. The tower collapsed without affection to much the next building

The pentagon got hit in a section under renovation, no real damage (when compared to what could happen if it have hit on the other side)

The last plane crashed in the middle of no-where, was tough to go for the white house.

The terrorist attack perfectly played its role in putting fear and vengeance tough in Americans minds with minimal casualty and destruction (and I wont ever say it is a bad thing). Also not many attack happened on US soil since the invasion of two country and the raise of the anti-americanisme in the muslim world.

<snip>That CIA director George Tenet gave the following warning to National Security Adviser Condoleeze Rice: "It is highly likely that a significant Al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Rice later said that 911 was a complete surprise to everyone.
When 911 happened, I was totally non-plussed. Everyone in my office was bewildered and shocked, but I had been expecting a major terrorist attack on the US for years.

The simple truth is - we live in an open and free society, and that makes us vunerable in ways people in authoritarian societies can't fathom.

Because I have a rather twisted mind, while in the military, I worked with friends of mine in the EOD to come up with simple ans inexpensive scenerios for destabilizing the US government, economy and infrastructure. These were submitted through DoD channels to Washington for inclusion in anti-terror alogrthyms. We came up with many fine and nasty ways of causing massive destabilization (and sometimes casualties), but NEVER ONCE did we think of flying a commercial jet liner into an office building.

So YES, the Government has "known" that there was to be a terrorist attack on the US - simply because it was inevatible. But the only way to have "stopped" it would have been to have jumped directly into an authoritarian military-police-state system.

So guess what, you can really only "blame" one thing for 9/11... and that thing is FREEDOM. We have it, and people Hate us for it, so they use it against us.

Freedom does have a price, and that price is the lives of people willing to both live under and protect it.

I, for one, am not willing to give it up. No matter how much "safer" it makes us.

Funny how when the trade towers were hit and Al quieda (sp?) were blamed.. The american administration paid for all of Bin Ladens relatives to be flown out of america and back to their home country.... and also funny how a lot of the hijackers have been found to be alive and well and living full lives... hmmm makes you think...

Funny how when the trade towers were hit and Al quieda (sp?) were blamed.. The american administration paid for all of Bin Ladens relatives to be flown out of america and back to their home country.... and also funny how a lot of the hijackers have been found to be alive and well and living full lives... hmmm makes you think...

Not really they were part of the Saudi Royal Family, what do you reckon it would look like if America didn't do this ?

Not really they were part of the Saudi Royal Family, what do you reckon it would look like if America didn't do this ?
That we think that Saudi Wahabbisim is the real threat to World peace? :rolleyes:

IMO Saudi should be a glass parking lot, and should have been made so before we "removed" Saddam. I'm sure teher is some way we could do it w/o harming Mecca...

That we think that Saudi Wahabbisim is the real threat to World peace? :rolleyes:

IMO Saudi should be a glass parking lot, and should have been made so before we "removed" Saddam. I'm sure teher is some way we could do it w/o harming Mecca...

:confused: If you say so

Okay...


Okay, that still doesn't explain how it just disappeared less a few small scraps. Still, you can't flay a plane into a building without marking up the lawn. I'm sorry, but your logic here is a bit faulty. You make a 757 jet as to be a cessna.


not a difficult thing to explain at all. Ever seen what a plane does when it collides with a massive, unyeilding structure? Aircraft like the 757 are rivetted aluminum structures. Most air-crashes that leave a visible section of identifiable wreckage are "Pancake" landings, not nose-on ramming crashes.
{puts on "Boeing" hat, after seeing my recall rights have been extended to 2008...} The description on Snopes is consistent with what I know (from the doing part) about how those airliners are built.
to wit: it's amazing there were pieces large enough to identify at all.




That's cuz you were at least a few hundred feet away and probably saw it for a split second if you are indeed telling the truth (which for some reason I find hard to believe.)

here's another reputable site with evidence supporting my claim:

http://911research.wtc7.net/


Um... the CIA mind-control lasers aren't real, you can safely remove the tinfoil from your head. "Reputable" doesn't include references to the nonextistent Illuminati, Trilateral Comission, or Order of the Owl. (forget the Masons, while your at it...)



Too bad I'm not bringing more "despair into the lives of 5000+ families." Don't they deserve the absolute truth? Same with our troops? And what do you say to Bill O' Reilly who destroyed the reputation of a man who lost his father in the WTC attacks? I am in no way attacking the families of thie victims of 9/11. The families of the 9/11 victims deserve the truth instead of the blind "patriotism" that is present in your comments. You're dead wrong there, my friend. And if you don't like what I say, don't read it...continue to live in your sheltered world of lies and tales made up by Big Brother.

Big Brother is real, but incompetent, friend. the level of competence and planning necessary to place video-footage of the impacts (and I can, as a former maker of those planes, identify them in broad daylight on clear video thanks...)
is outside the realm of even a dedicated effort by the Fed and all its friends. Hell, they couldn't even kill Randy Weaver without getting caught.

Who's Randy Weaver. Is he that dead guy who was mad at the government for supporting Most Alaskans instead of a few special interest groups there?

Who's Randy Weaver. Is he that dead guy who was mad at the government for supporting Most Alaskans instead of a few special interest groups there?

Nope, Randy Weaver was a fruitcake who chose to separate his family and himself from society in Idaho, and live in a "Simplified" (read: Primitive) way. His particular nuttiness was being a "White Separatist"-basically a racist (censored), but he didn't want to hurt anyone, or have anything to do with the violent racists fifteen miles away. in the late 1980s he was approached by the FBI to go and report on what Richard Butler and his pack of racist fuckheads were up to. Randy elected not to do this. In 1992, he was harassed by an ATF informant to sell a shotgun 1/8 of an inch below the legal length.
After numerous forms of harassment, the Feds sent a team up to Mr. Weaver's house on the pretext of his missing a court-date (the court-date was changed without informing him, if I remember the case correctly).
The Federal team approached by concealment,dressed in camouflage, with automatic weapons.
Weaver's dog went off, so they shot the dog. His son returned fire, killing one agent. It's important to remember that by the time the gunfire began, the Feds had yet to announce who they were, or why they were there. Now, if someone shoots at me without identifying themselves, and I have neighbours like the Aryan Nations compound, I'm gonna shoot back too.

Randy came out, his son was wounded, they tried to retreat into the house (shack, really.) Vicki, Randy's wife, holding a baby, held the door open long enough for an FBI sniper to take her head off. Bang.

After the surviving Weavers were inside the shack, the feds identified themselves, and began a week-long stand-off that was resolved by the intervention of retired Colonel James "bo" Gritz, who'd been Mr. Weaver's commanding officer in Vietnam.

Colonel Gritz talked Randy down enough to save what was left of his family.

Randy ended up doing 90 days as the felony action was found to be illegal entrapment, and the only 'crime' committed by him, was failure to appear.

He sued the Federal Government, and won. The ACLU helped him do this, as Randy and famly had neither pot to piss in, nor window to throw it out of.

Three million dollars doesn't make up for having your wife's head blown off while holding a baby. Randy Weaver's alive, but minus a son, and a wife. His surviving children are minus a mother, and the reason is because someone wanted to play cowboy.

[Playing 'Cowboy' means playing fast-and-loose with the rules as a law-enforcement agent.]

a few points...

the reason that there was little wreckage at the Pentagon is easily dealt with. A simple physics equation regarding mass times velocity equals kinetic energy will tell you why. Basically jet airliners are hollow tubes of aluminum. The aircraft was moving around 600 mph when it hit a very solid and recently hardened Pentagon. Simply put, it would be like taking a wet cardboard tube and slamming it against the wall of concrete building with your own hand. Its going to collapse upon itself. Now the plane was moving far, far faster, and it managed to breach the wall. But little identiable remained afterward. The same thing happened at the towers, most of the aircraft simply disintegrated as it entered into the building. Why do you think there was a crater instead of a lot of scattered pieces in that field in western PA.

A crash back in the 1980s or 90s (I forget the date), was very similar. Look up the Valuejet crash. Basically the jet nose dived into the Everglades (a massive swamp) at high speed and all they found were some seats floating afterwards and a few bodies. It was only going around 300 MPH when it hit the ground.

There is NO WAY that the US government would ever intentionally target the NY Financial district. Remember that for a week after 9/11 the Stock Exchange was closed down because not only was the whole area evacuated, but power and phones for the Stock Exchange ran under the World Trade Center Complex and they were destroyed. The economic damage was staggering and contributed to the general economic recession we had for a while post 9/11.

For that matter, hitting the Pentagon was equally nonsensical. If you want to orchestrate a war, you don't try to take out the primary command center of the US military.

A real conspiracy would have targeted something more political symbolic that would have enhanced the Presidents power. Like for example the Capital Building when Congress was in session.

Plain and simple, the attacks were successful on 9/11 because of US organizational failings, a lack of vision by those same organizations, and successful and ruthless planning by the hi jackers.

snip .]

That incident and Waco were not Federal Law Enforcements finest hour sad to say.

Its funny how fast the focus of 911 swiched from osama, and al-queda to Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, we put saddam in, and now we're doing it again. I dont know about bush planning it, seems kinda fishy, but honestly, he's too damn stupid to have orchestrated that or even kept his mouth shut about it, hes just a dumbass, plain and simple.

Its funny how fast the focus of 911 swiched from osama, and al-queda to Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, we put saddam in, and now we're doing it again. I dont know about bush planning it, seems kinda fishy, but honestly, he's too damn stupid to have orchestrated that or even kept his mouth shut about it, hes just a dumbass, plain and simple.

On the other hand, Dick Cheney, a seasoned Washington insider and right-hand man to three Republican presidents, is just precisely the sort of crafty, resourceful, utterly pragmatic and completely self-serving individual to successfully orchestrate any number of tricky situations. And to keep his and Bush Jr.s' mouths shut. He's the guy the Republicans put in charge of America back in 2000. Bush is just noisy baggage to manage and mollify. A front man. Window dressing.

stands up and applauds Dobbsworld

couldnt have said it better myself

That incident and Waco were not Federal Law Enforcements finest hour sad to say.

Aint it amazing though-people who were fine with clumsy bastards burning up the "hostages" at Waco through stupiidty, and people who had no problem with Vicki Weaver having her head blown off by an FBI sniper in an illegal op, have big problems with Gitmo, while people who were spitting fire after Ruby Ridge and Waco seem to have no problem with The "Patriot" act.

It really makes you wonder if we haven't been maybe just about this polarized all along, doesn't it? I mean, folks who seem upset by the way we're treating Terrorists see nothing wrong with doing the same (or worse) to Americans.

It really raises a question, especially when you get into the fun world of Conspiracy Theory. You really have to look closely to determine, sometimes, if the accusations aren't more or less based on which party has the White House, rather than what the evidence says.

While I may believe that Timmy McVey had inside-help bombing the Oklahoma Federal Building, I don't go so far as to suggest that a Federal Agency (as a whole) was directly involved, or would sanction such an action. a Dirty agent, maybe-maybe more than one-the OKC bombing in '95 took the heat off the ATF and FBI's HRT, it also decapitated DEA coordination in several Central and South American operations, and harmed IRS and Federal Marshall investigations in the southwest.

On the other hand, I don't see 9/11 being that kind of Operation, It was America let its guard down, and the International thugs used it. Rumours of live suspects turning up are greatly exaggerated where they aren't made of whole-cloth.
similarly, extensive analysis by (among others) Scientific American Magazine and Aviation Leak (Oops, I mean "Aviation Week" freudian slip there...) have disproved hypotheses involving cruise missiles, UAV's, and internal demo charges.
Don't be blinded by your hatred of a given presidency. Clinton didn't order those people to be burned alive at Waco, or Vicki Weaver and Samuel Weaver to be gunned down on their own property-these were, at most, the actions of corrupt or incompetent agents, most likely incompetent, acting on vague orders with 'glory' on their minds.

Likewise, Usama's (Osama?) boys ramming the airliners into the buildings happened-the fourth plane, the passengers didn't play to form, they fought back, and only the passengers, terrorists, aircrew, and some harmless plants died. The vast bulk of the evidence supports the Hijackers-rammed-loaded-planes-into-the-towers Hypothesis. Information on USAF(R) and Air Force operations in the target area further denies support for the "Willingly encouraged" hypothesis-in FY 2001, we were still under Clinton-era Defense cuts, which included the Air Force's budget for domestic patrol. there was one squadron on duty that day, and they weren't within intercept range to prevent any of the attacks. There was one squadron the day before, and the week prior, going back almost four years.
September being the eighth full month since GW took office, he just simply did not have the time to orchestrate a massive cover-up, arrange the dummy airliners, eliminate/manufacture witnesses and family members, etc. to generate this atrocity. It takes more than a year for a President to significantly affect the actions of the agencies answerable to him-that's the sheer effect of scale. the U.S. government is gigantic, one in twenty people work either directly, or indirectly for it. With more than 260 million Americans, tha's a hell of a lot of people to sort through for agents that could pull it off, and agents that would.

Two can keep a secret-if one is dead.

Documents can be forged, fabricated, or not even exist and people will believe a thing-look at the Kennedy Assassination, or Watergate, or Iran-Contra...

No. This time, the "Official" story is probably the accurate one.

highly likely[/B]," "near future," and "several" to be used in reports, not to mention noting the wrong terrorist organization, instead of our officials knowing the specifics.
More specifics for you - Condi lied under oath about how many memos dealt with the subject. THere were 52. 52 between April and Sept. that year. Look it up. Archives here.
Get with it.

some pointers. connect the dots.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-809840,curpg-2.cms

Most controversially, Goss was having a breakfast meeting in Washington with the then ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad at the exact instant the 9/11 hijackers flew their planes into the World Trade Center. Ahmad was a Taliban supporter who was subsequently removed from his job when he continued to bat for the outlaw regime post 9/11.

Some reports have suggested that Ahmad and the ISI had links to -- or foreknowledge about -- 9/11. A money transfer from Karachi to the hijackers in Florida has never been fully explored or explained. Ahmad was never called to account for this or his support to the Taliban post 9/11 even as General Musharraf moved him into the shadows.

Goss himself visited Pakistan just a few days before 9/11 for talks with the then pariah military establishment of Gen. Musharraf.


http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407A.html
Two weeks before 9/11, Porter Goss, the White House nominee for the CIA Director of Intelligence was being "briefed on the growing threat of al Qaeda" (WP, 5/04/03) by a Pakistani General who "ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban." (WP, 5/18/02)



Following George Tenet's resignation as Director of Central Intelligence at the CIA, the Bush administration immediately pointed to Rep. Porter Goss, as its handpicked nominee.

Porter Goss, a Florida Republican and former CIA operative, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He also chaired, together with Senator Bob Graham, the Joint Senate House Committee, on the September 11 attacks.

According to the White House, "the rush to name a replacement" was driven by "worries" of a possible terrorist attack on America in the wake of Tenet's untimely departure.

Yet if the real objective is to to make "America safer", why then did President Bush nominate an individual who is known and acknowledged to have dubious links to the Islamic terror network?

Amply documented, Porter Goss had an established personal relationship to the Head of Pakistan Military Intelligence (ISI), General Mahmoud Ahmad, who according to the Washington Post "ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" (Washington Post, 18 May 2002).

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the ISI has over the years supported a number of Islamic terrorist organizations, while maintaining close links to the CIA:

"Through its Interservices Intelligence agency (ISI), Pakistan provided funding, arms, training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad..."

(http://www.cfrterrorism.org/groups/harakat2.html , see also http://www.cfrterrorism.org/coalition/pakistan2.html ).

Moreover, according to intelligence sources and the FBI, General Mahmoud Ahmad allegedly played an undercover role in channeling financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html , see also http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html )

Yet this same individual, General Ahmad, was on an official visit to Washington from the 4th to the 13th of September 2001, meeting his counterpart George Tenet as well as key members of the administration and the US Congress including Rep Porter Goss.

In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before September 11, Representative Porter Goss together with Senator Bob Graham and Senator Jon Kyl were on a top level intelligence mission in Islamabad, which was barely mentioned by the US media.

Meetings were held with President Pervez Musharraf and with Pakistan's military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad.

The ISI headed by General Ahmad was allegedly also involved in ordering the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance, General Ahmed Shah Massood. (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309B.html ) The kamikaze assassination took place on the 9th of September (9/9 two days before 9/11) during General Mahmoud Ahmad's official "red carpet" visit to Washington. (4-13 September 2004). The official communiqué of the Northern Alliance pointed to the involvement of the ISI headed by General Mahmoud Ahmad.

Porter Goss Hosts the General

The Pakistani General's host on Capitol Hill during his official visit to Washington was Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's nominee for the position of Director of Central Intelligence.

In fact, on the morning of September 11, Porter Goss was hosting a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill in honor of General Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" (to use the FBI's expression) behind the 9/11 hijackers.

The 9/11 breakfast meeting was described by one press report as a "follow-up meeting" to that held in Pakistan in late August 2001, barely two weeks before 9/11.
Pakistan's ISI supports the Terror Network

This support by Pakistan's ISI to various "Islamic terrorist" organizations was pursued prior as well as in the wake of 9/11, despite the commitment of the Pakistani government to "cooperate" with Washington in the war on terrorism.

Bear in mind that at the time of the Goss-Graham mission to Islamabad in late August 2001, the ISI was still actively supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban:

"... Musharraf’s Pakistan continued to support these groups up through September 11 and the attack on the Indian parliament. [December 2001]. Some key Pakistani constituencies, including Islamists and elements of the ISI, remain supportive of Islamist fighters in Kashmir and are livid with Musharraf for moving against them." (CFR, op cit, emphasis added)

Moreover, according to a detailed report by Human Rights Watch:

"Official denials notwithstanding, Pakistan has provided the Taliban with military advisers and logistical support during key battles, has bankrolled the Taliban, has facilitated transshipment of arms, ammunition, and fuel through its territory, and has openly encouraged the recruitment of Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban....

"Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support....

"Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force." ( http://hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm#P350_92934 emphasis added)

In other words, up to and including September 11, 2001, extending to December 2001, the ISI had been supporting the terror network.

And that was precisely the period during which Porter Goss and Bob Graham established a close working relationship with the ISI chief, General Ahmad. The latter had in fact "briefed" the two Florida lawmakers at ISI headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistan:

["Senator Bob Graham's] first foreign trip as chairman [of the Senate Intelligence Committee], a late-August [2001] journey with House intelligence Chairman Goss and Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, focused almost entirely on terrorism. It ended in Pakistan, where [ISI Chief} Gen. Ahmed's intelligence agents briefed them on the growing threat of al Qaeda while they peered across the Khyber Pass at a then-obscure section of Afghanistan. It was called Tora Bora. The trio also visited Ahmed's compound and urged him to do more to help capture Osama bin Laden. The general hadn't said much, but the group had agreed to discuss the issue more when he visited Washington. [arriving on September 4, 2001]

So on September 11, they all reconvened in a top-secret conference room on the fourth floor of the U.S. Capitol. According to Graham's copious notes, they discussed "poppy cultivation" before they discussed terrorism. But then the Americans pressed Ahmed even harder to crack down on al Qaeda...

And then:

"9:04 -- Tim gives note on 2 planes crash into World Trade Center, NYC." (Washington Post, 4 May 2003)

Rep Porter Goss could have pleaded ignorance on the morning of 9/11: "I did not know about the General." But the "Pakistani ISI connection" and the role played by its former head, General Mahmoud Ahmad have since 9/11 been amply documented.

However, at no time since 9/11 have Rep Porter Goss and his Senate counterpart Bob Graham (chairman of the Senate intelligence committee) acknowledged the role of Pakistan's ISI in supporting Al Qaeda. In fact quite the opposite. One year after the attacks, the former head of the ISI continues to be described as a bona fide intelligence counterpart, supportive of the US "war on terrorism". In an interview in The New York Times on the first anniversary of 9/11, Sen. Bob Graham describes his August 2001 encounter with General Ahmad:

"I had just come back a few days before September the 11th from a trip... [to] Pakistan and [a ] meeting with President Musharraf and with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. While we were meeting with the head of the intelligence service, a general whose name was General Ahmed, he had indicated he would be in Washington in early September, we -- Porter Goss, myself -- had invited him to meet with us while he was there. It turned out that the meeting was a breakfast the day of September the 11th. [Official visits of this nature are planned well in advance. In all likelihood, Ahmad's visit to the US Congress on September 11 was part of his schedule. The Head of the ISI arrived in the US on the 4th. Graham states in the interview that he got back a few days before 9/11, which suggests that the Goss-Graham mission could well have returned to Washington on board the same (military) plane as General Ahmad]

So we were talking about what was happening in Afghanistan, what the capabilities and intentions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda were from the perspective of this Pakistani intelligence leader, when we got the notices that the World Trade Center towers had been attacked.

Q. So you had a more of an inkling than most people that something like this was possible due to your job, but still you couldn't have anticipated that it would happen.

A. Yeah, we had had no briefings either in the United States or in our just-concluded trip that indicated the immediacy or any of the specificity of what happened on September the 11th.

Q. But to you, probably less so than other people, it wasn't that surprising.

A. The fact that something like Sept. 11 occurred and that it occurred in the United States was not a stunning development. The fact that we were vulnerable to this had been anticipated. The actual details, the sophistication and the carnage, the loss of life that occurred, were stunning.

Q. The fact that you had no briefings or warnings, now looking back and you see what kind of evidence was around, was there an intelligence failure?

A. Well, that's one of the major questions that our joint inquiry is targeted to answer. I would defer a final answer until we have completed our review." (NYT, 10 September 2002, emphasis added)

In other words, two weeks before 9/11, the White House nominee for the CIA Director of Intelligence was being "briefed on the growing threat of al Qaeda" (WP, 5/04/03) by a Pakistani General who "ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban." (WP, 5/18/02 for further details see below). Meanwhile we are led to believe that the revamping of the CIA is required to effectively wage the global war on terrorism (GWOT).

The Goss-Graham Joint Inquiry on 9/11

The role of the ISI had been excluded from the Goss-Graham Joint Inquiry's 858 page Report? (See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2003_rpt/joint-intell_9-11report_dec02-rel03.htm ).

While casually hinting to "Saudi support and involvement" in 9/11, the Joint Committee report has overlooked a vast body of analysis on ISI support to the terror network, in which the two Florida lawmen are personally implicated.

Needless to say, Saudi financing of Islamic organizations was part of an intelligence structure involving Pakistan's ISI and the CIA.

The Bush's administration's "cooperation" with Pakistan's ISI in the "war on terrorism"

On September 13th 2001, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "moneyman" behind the 9/11 hijackers was meeting Colin Powell at the State Department to discuss the terms of Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terrorism.

Was it "an intelligence failure" to seek the cooperation of the Pakistani government in the "war on terrorism" in an agreement brokered by the head of a spy agency which is known to support the Islamic terror network?

Why was the Ahmad-Powell meeting never acknowledged in the Goss-Graham Report?


Please note that Daniel Pearl who went to pakistan for investigating among other things, this relationship between Al-Queada -ISI and ISI - CIA , was killed by Omar Shariff , who was the person who wired $ 100K to Mohammed Atta before 9/11 .

Omar Shariff is still in pakistani jail and US , to my knowledge, has not asked for extradition of the guy , nor have questioned him, even though "higher up in the hierarchy" guys like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin etc have been dutifully handed over to the US.

Omar got released in exchange for the hijacked Indian plane IC-814 from Nepal.

another dot.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040722-051231-9906r.htm
Osama bin Laden's principal Pakistani adviser prior to 9/11 was retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief who is "strategic adviser" to the coalition of six politico-religious parties that governs two of Pakistan's four provinces. Known as MMA, the coalition also occupies 20 percent of the seats in the federal assembly in Islamabad. Hours after 9/11, Gul publicly accused Israel's Mossad of fomenting the 9/11 plot. Later, Gul said the U.S. Air Force must have been in on the conspiracy as no warplanes were scrambled to shoot down the hijacked airliners.

Gul spent two weeks in Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. He denied having met Osama bin Laden during that trip, but has always said he was an "admirer" of the al-Qaida leader. However, he did meet with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader, on several occasions.

Since 9/11, hardly a week goes by without Gul denouncing the U.S. in both the Urdu and English-language media.

In a conversation with this reporter in October 2001, Gul forecast a future Islamist nuclear power that would form a greater Islamic state with a fundamentalist Saudi Arabia after the demise of the monarchy.

Gul worked closely with the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when he was in charge of ISI. He was "mildly" fundamentalist in those days, he explained after 9/11, and indifferent to the U.S. But he became passionately anti-American after the U.S. turned its back on Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, and began punishing Pakistan with economic and military sanctions for its secret nuclear buildup.

A ranking CIA official, speaking not for attribution, said the agency considered Gul to be "the most dangerous man" in Pakistan. A senior Pakistani political leader, also speaking on condition his name not be used, said, "I have reason to believe Hamid Gul was Osama bin Laden's master planner."




the money trail

http://www.geocities.com/charcha_2000/essays/money_trail.html

and
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26249

Did ally Pakistan play role in 9-11?

Burger demanded the Indian government release three Pakistani terrorists from prison in exchange for the airline hostages. After an eight-day stand-off, New Delhi agreed to free Ahmed Omar Sayeed Sheikh among the three.

Sheikh turns out to be one of Osama bin Laden's chief money men. About a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, Sheikh wired $100,000 from Pakistan to Atta from an account in the United Arab Emirates capital of Dubai. Sheikh was spotted in Islamabad at the time the money was transferred.

The $100,000 covered the hijackers' flight-school tuition and airfare, as well as living expenses. Sheikh picked up an unspent residual of more than $25,000 from Atta and three other hijackers in Dubai right before the attacks, then fled back to Karachi, Pakistan.

The 28-year-old Sheikh is a leader in Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (J-e-M), an Islamic militant group. Its founder, Mohammad Masood Azhar, aka Maulana Masood, is closely linked to bin Laden.

unrelated, but still....from the above link.

At a Jan. 16 press conference in Pakistan, for example, Powell stubbornly insisted that Pakistan is not running a base for terrorism, or sponsoring and harboring terrorists linked to al-Qaida. He suggested the terrorists there are nothing more than free radicals.

Asked by an Indian reporter about the seemingly well-organized network of terrorists still operating there, he said that no country is immune from terrorism. Even America has its own "home-grown" terrorists, Powell said dismissively.


:rolleyes:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/terror.probe/
Authorities earlier this week arrested a father and son, identified as 47-year-old Umer Hayat and 22-year-old Hamid Hayat from Lodi, on charges they lied to FBI investigators. The son is to be arraigned Friday.They have not been charged with terrorist involvement, although a criminal complaint alleges the son attended an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/palmbeachpost101702.html

In August 2001, just before Glass started to serve a seven-month sentence for a $6 million jewelry scam, he said he reached out to Sen. Bob Graham and U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler. He said he told staffers for both lawmakers that a Pakistani operative working for the Taliban known as R.G. Abbas made three references to imminent plans to attack the World Trade Center during the probe, which ended in June 2001.

At one meeting at New York's Tribeca Grill caught on tape, Abbas pointed to the World Trade Center and said, "Those towers are coming down," Glass said.

Glass also now says the State Department, in an effort to maintain good diplomatic relations with Pakistan, pulled the plug on the South Florida terrorist probe, believing Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf could control the militant terrorist faction of his government.



http://www.geocities.com/charcha_2000/essays/TSP911.pdf

Smoking Gun #1: The Money Trail and Kidnap-Terror Links
: “Since 1989, Usama Bin Laden has established a series of businesses to provide income for Al Qaida, and to provide cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons and chemicals, and for the travel of Al Qaida operatives. The businesses have included a holding company known as ‘Wadi Al Aqiq’, a construction business known as ‘Al Hijra’, an agricultural business known as ‘Al Themar Al Mubaraka’, and investment companies known as ‘Ladin International’ and ‘Taba Investments’.”

[B][Wpost020216] and [TOI0208] report on Pakistani conduits for Al Qaeda funding. The “smoking-gun” accusation in the 9/11 investigation, however, is a cell-phone call allegedly from Pakistan ISI Chief, Lt. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed to terrorist Omar Shaikh Saeed, who then transferred $100,000 from a UAE bank to Mohammed Atta in Germany before the 9/11 attacks. The call was caught by Indian RAW (Research & Analysis Wing) agents monitoring Ahmed’s (or Saeed’s) cell phone, and shadowing Saeed in a bookstore in Karachi. [Mir020711] gives the transfer date in summer 2000, which fits later American / German reports [CNN020710] of the terrorists’ banking records, citing a $110K deposit as the earliest transaction – in 2000. On 9/10/2001, Atta and one of the other hijackers are reported to have wired the remainder of the money to the UAE (Atta reported to have wired $15,600), where Omar Shaikh is said to have collected it and returned to Pakistan immediately. From the American side of the transactions [LaTimes0110]: “The money trail to the Emirates just before the Sept. 11 attacks consisted of wire transfers to a man identified as Mustafa Ahmad, thought to be a financial officer in Al Qaeda. Al-Shehhi wired $5,400 to Ahmad, (Shaykh Saiid) shortly before noon on Sept. 10 from a Western Union office at the Greyhound bus terminal in Boston,...Separately, suspected hijacker Waleed M. Alshehri sent $5,215 to Ahmad from a currency booth at Boston's Logan Airport on the evening of Sept. 9. .. Atta wired money to Ahmad on Sept. 8 and 9. The document is unclear on the amounts, but Al Suweidi said it was like the others, about $5,000. Ahmad picked up the transfers on Sept. 11 from the Al Ansari exchange in Sharjah... The same day, Ahmad used a Saudi Arabian passport to fly from Dubai to Pakistan, Emirates officials have said.” “Ahmad” was apparently identified with photos of Omar Shaikh Saeed by staff at the Ansari exchange. The source of these funds poses further interesting questions discussed below, but the accusation against Mehmood resulted in swift action to remove and protect him. Immediately following the publication of these reports, Mehmood Ahmed was moved out of the ISI chief post, but only to another post in the inner Corps Commanders’ Council which helps Musharraf rule Pakistan. [TOI011009] reported that the US sought his removal after confirming the wiring of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by “Ahmed Umar Sheikh” at his instance.

One might well ask why the original $100K payment would be made through traceable channels. The answer may be that (a) the source had to be authenticated for Atta to proceed and (a) the traceable party was Omar Shaikh Saeed, already a known terrorist with Al Qaeda links, and thus expendable (he is supposedly on Death Row now). Note that Saeed’s pseudonym for the transactions was “M. Ahmad”. The cell-phone intercept of Pakistan ISI Chief General Mehmood Ahmed was presumably secret until revealed to the FBI in late 2001 when its significance became clear.

A further link in the funding scheme came from arrests following the motorcycle drive-by murder of policemen guarding the American Center in Kolkata, India in January 2002. Even as India pointed to Pakistani links, Aftab Ansari, a kidnap-gang leader, was reported to have claimed credit for this from safety in Dubai, as “revenge”. Indian police had shot his associate Asif Reza Khan, “trying to escape” after being arrested for holding jeweler Bhaskar Parekh to ransom in November 2000. This prompted US FBI Chief Robert Mueller, visiting India at the time, to declare that the shooting appeared to be gang-related, not a terrorist attack on the US. The fun ended when two of the motorcyclists were tracked down and surrounded. One died in a shootout, the other was captured alive and interrogated. Using evidence from Asif Reza Khan’s interrogation, Interpol issued a “Red Corner Notice” against Ansari. Dubai acted quickly on this notice, arresting Aftab Ansari as he tried to catch a PIA flight to Karachi with his Pakistani passport. Dubai extradited him to India, where he confessed. From [TOI020123]: “CBI Director P C Sharma told visiting FBI Chief Robert S Mueller that Ansari, who claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack, had taken a ransom of Rs 37.5 million to free (kidnap victim) shoe baron Parthapratim Roy Burman through hawala channels to Dubai.. . Out of this amount, Omar Sheikh ..had sent $100,000 to Atta through telegraphic transfer..”.

There appears to be confusion in the media reports on the timing of the $100K wire transfer (if there was only one). We presume that “Al Ansari exchange” mentioned above in Sharjah, a half-hour’s drive from Dubai, is owned by Mr. Ansari. The link between Aftab Ansari, Omar Shaikh and the Pakistan ISI is discussed in [Twk020322], and attributed to Ansari’s gang-member Asif in [TRIN020126], and Ansari’s confession in [Trib020513] and [IPCS2002]. [Rediff020123] describes how Ansari, Omar Shaikh Saeed and Masood Azhar met in prison. Mr. Burman was kidnapped in July 2001 and released on Aug. 2, 2001 . However, Ansari’s specialties were kidnapping and arms deals, and he had no shortage of wealth. [CNN020710] reports that “one of the first transfers was $110,000 in 2000 to an account held by Atta and Waleed Alshedri” – clearly this could not be from the ransom money obtained in November 2000 or July 2001. [Mir020711] also states that the Mehmood-Saeed wire of $100,000 to Atta occurred in “summer 2000”, matching the above. Ansari’s confession stated that Omar Shaikh Saeed introduced him at General Mehmood’s suggestion in mid-2000 to “Professor” Hafeez Sayeed, leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist organization, and they jointly developed plots where kidnapping would fund terror activities. Azim Cheema, an L-e-T terrorist, is said to have delivered the Pakistani passport and other documents for Ansari’s use. Ansari confessed to several payments to Omar Shaikh Saeed, and to funding an arms cache including 14kg of RDX, which was seized in Patan, India.

The confusion regarding payments can be cleared by realizing that there were several payments, totaling well over $325,000 and perhaps over $500,000 [CNN020710]. The source may have been Al Ansari accounts, but the disbursements may have been routed through the Middle East, Europe or the Caymans, using banking and untraceable “hawala” channels. [CNN020710] reports how the 9/11 hijackers opened bank accounts, giving false data in cities in the southern US including SunTrust, a major Atlanta-based bank. A report from the Cayman Islands [Cayman010916] speaks of a strange group appearing there, claiming to be Afghans traveling on Pakistani passports – which could not be found. As the authorities tried to find out from Pakistan and Britain about these men (with no response from the Pak embassy), an anonymous writer sent a letter to a Cayman media editor declaring that the men were terrorists bent on launching an attack on the US – just before Sep. 11.

From the above accounts, the Pakistan ISI Chief and terrorists under his control appear to have been much closer to the funding and implementation of the 9/11 plot than Osama bin Laden was. The links between the kidnapping / hijacking ransoms and the 9/11 terrorists’ funding shows a very different tactic from those attributed to bin Laden’s funding mechanisms. Clearly, the spy agency of Pakistan would be in an excellent position to shake down international kidnappers who depended on Pakistani protection and passports – and the ISI Chief would have easy access to their accounts. The intercepted cell-phone call is the only direct published tie to Musharraf’s junta – unless Omar Shaikh Saeed talks to US investigators. [B]Pakistan appears bent on preventing this – supposedly having put Saeed on Death Row for the murder of Daniel Pearl. Hafeez Sayeed, the L-e-T chief, has also disappeared, his wife having filed a “habeas corpus” petition and the Pak authorities denying holding him.

On-site Executive Supervision

One feature of most Al Qaeda attacks is that the “project director”, a senior terrorist officer, visits the target city – and leaves hours before the actual event. After the 9/11 attack, a senior mullah was arrested at Heathrow airport as he left a plane from the US – but nothing has been heard of that since. There was, however, another senior officer present – General Mehmood Ahmed, ISI Chief, was visiting the State Department when the attack on the Pentagon occurred – and he had practically a direct view of the event. From [Mateen010910]: "ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. .. most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden."

A final hint of ISI involvement in the 9/11 attack comes in the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Masood on September 9 using a suicide bomb in a TV camera, and hints on bin Laden’s whereabouts. According to [CBS0203], bin Laden was reported to be in Pakistan for “medical treatment”. On the night of Sep. 9, General Musharraf was at a party at ISI Headquarters, where he met former ISI Chief, General Hamid Gul on his return from his weeks-long stay in Afghanistan [JLA020610]. A clear link between the Algerian suicide bomber, the TV-camera-bomb, and Pakistan has not yet been reported.

Another possible reason for the 9/09 “party” at ISI HQ has not been explored in the media. The first of the payments from the 9/11 hijackers, signaling that they had no further need for money in this world, was wired from Boston on 9/08 – and the recipient in Sharjah would have known immediately. It must have been the afternoon of the 9th in Pakistan. Why else were these payments, relatively negligible sums, wired at such risk of eventual discovery? And why by the same route by which the original $100K came? Which takes us to the most frightening piece of evidence: the timing when the airlift of strategic assets from Afghanistan was planned.

Smoking Gun #2: Transfer of assets from Afghanistan
On Sep. 12 (in Pakistan – late Sep. 11 in the US) all major Pakistani airports were closed for several hours [Rind010915], [Raman010917]. Heavy military traffic was reported. It was speculated that the senior officers from Afghanistan and critical equipment / weapons were being brought home before American bombing made travel impossible. The timing is extremely interesting when one considers the lead-time needed for a large-scale airlift involving both people and heavy equipment. The aircraft must have gone from Pakistan, and loaded men and equipment gathered from all over Afghanistan with its primitive roads and infrastructure, and returned to Pakistan. According to the Pakistani government [Hilton020808] General Musharraf was at some evening public meeting when he was informed of the attacks, and he dismissed them as something between the MidEast Arabs and the US – leaving less than 12 hours before the airlift arrived in Islamabad. When was this airlift planned? What does this imply about General Musharraf’s foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks? The Sep. 8 and 9 money transfers from Boston [LATimes0110], conveying the “All Systems are Go!” signal, serve to explain much of this miracle – but since Gen. Mehmood was in the US at the time, this also implies a more direct information channel from Omar Shaikh Saeed a.k.a. “Mustafa Ahmad” to General Pervez Musharraf.

As the Americans made clear their strategy of a close and intrusive embrace of Pakistan as opposed to a standoff attack, there was a major fire at Pakistan Army Headquarters in Islamabad [Sharma011011]. The records of Pakistan Army officers who had or were now serving in Afghanistan were reported to have been conveniently lost. A similarly unfortunate fire hit ISI HQ after the Mehmood Ahmed links were published.

Nope, Randy Weaver was a fruitcake who chose to separate his family and himself from society in Idaho, and live in a "Simplified" (read: Primitive) way. <snip> [Playing 'Cowboy' means playing fast-and-loose with the rules as a law-enforcement agent.]
Nice summary. I was living in Spokane (biggest city nearby) at the time - IMO you got it dead on. You get the Gerry Spence award for Truth in Posting.