Stupid Conspiracy Theorists...Gov't involved in 9/11...Get Real !!!

[abeautifulhaze]

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Again...since people want to drag the NWO and Illuminanti into the discussion and lump every so-called conspiracy theory they have ever heard together and use it as logic to believe an pre-packaged media explanation....Here is the record of an official United States Military document proposing the hijcaking and explosion of American airliners by American agents to gain support for a war against Cuba....the document was signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and made its way to our Presidents desk...that doesn't alarm anyone in any way?

Your argument consists of the facts that

1. The US government, comprised of entirely different members at that point in time, has done this in the past

2. It has led to some favorable circumstances for the US, i.e. giving us an "excuse" to position our troops and government infrastructure in the Middle East.

That doesn't prove anything, nor does it come remotely close. That's not to say that you're wrong, because obviously we can't be sure one way or the other. But you seem to have your mind made up.

Did I attempt to prove anything in that post or did I simply ask for personal opinions on the Northwoods document and incident?

Y'all can keep trying to force me into saying 1+2= X.

Thats not what this is about....No one knows for sure what happened on that day but odds are in favor of the official story being at least partially inaccurateand with declassified projects such as this in our military past, you should never close the door on governmental involvement, the way that some of you have.

 

[mideastbeast]

Well before I believe the govt. killed 3000 people I need some sort of proof.

"We had some shady activities 40 years ago" is not enough, sorry.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

"Tell me....how do we get to fight this ever expanding war in the middle east without 9/11?.......It couldn't happen." =/= proof of a conspiracy.

Where did I ever state that this was proof of a conspiracy?

You ask me an question about potential motives and then use my answer as me presenting evidence of a conspiracy.

The thought processes, methods of debate and rationale of some of you guys are worse than those of the real conspiracy nuts.

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

If you believe that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks that means you either believe that either

- The attacks on 9/11 were somehow a coordinated effort between the US and Al-Qaeda

- The US performed these attacks directly (the point of view argued by those who think it was an elaborate hoax, it was a missle not a plane, etc. etc.)

- The US knew about the attacks yet intentionally did nothing to prevent them

?

None of those scenarios seem at likely.

At the very most, you could argue that Bush & Rice allowed for these attacks to happen, ignoring the data gathered by US intelligence warning of attacks by Bin Laden that would target ""military passenger aircraft" and were "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests."

The most logical standpoint to take would be that, at worst, they were incredibly negligent.



Even if we had been behind these attacks, the premises seem a little ridiculous. I have no doubt that we invaded Iraq in part because of interests far removed from homeland security, but to say we set up these attacks in order to invade Iraq or Afghanistan seems far-fetched.

September 16, the first day Wall St opened up for trading after the attacks, was one the worst days on the floor ever, and many experts at the time believed it would lead us directly into a recession.

Doesn't seem to add up.

but not impossible
as long as there is a possiblity that it took place...

I don't think anyone can really pick sides here since facts from both sides are suspect

 

[joseph camel jr]

So you're saying what, it's a possibility that it could have been at least partially orchestrated by American government officials because of favorablecircumstances that arose as a direct results of the attacks?

 

[slipnslide23]

how can we as the general public know the reasoning of al-queda, we can only go by the information that we uncover
sure there is not enuff proof to point the finger at the U.S. for 9/11, but i think there was quite enuff irregularities in the story given by the bushadministration to just blame al-queda

call me out if im incorect, but couldn't the us have worked out a deal with al-queda prior to 9/11 which consisted only of 9/11 and hiding and any interestin iraq

 

[joseph camel jr]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

If you believe that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks that means you either believe that either

- The attacks on 9/11 were somehow a coordinated effort between the US and Al-Qaeda

- The US performed these attacks directly (the point of view argued by those who think it was an elaborate hoax, it was a missle not a plane, etc. etc.)

- The US knew about the attacks yet intentionally did nothing to prevent them

?

None of those scenarios seem at likely.

At the very most, you could argue that Bush & Rice allowed for these attacks to happen, ignoring the data gathered by US intelligence warning of attacks by Bin Laden that would target ""military passenger aircraft" and were "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests."

The most logical standpoint to take would be that, at worst, they were incredibly negligent.



Even if we had been behind these attacks, the premises seem a little ridiculous. I have no doubt that we invaded Iraq in part because of interests far removed from homeland security, but to say we set up these attacks in order to invade Iraq or Afghanistan seems far-fetched.

September 16, the first day Wall St opened up for trading after the attacks, was one the worst days on the floor ever, and many experts at the time believed it would lead us directly into a recession.

Doesn't seem to add up.

but not impossible
as long as there is a possiblity that it took place...

I don't think anyone can really pick sides here since facts from both sides are suspect

Yes, exactly.

There's a possibility....OK, I think everyone's aware of that. But given the complete and utter lack of evidence backing up this possibility, thatmeans very little. Almost anything can be ruled "possible."

 

[mideastbeast]

The towers were always a goal of al-Qaeda. They got attacked in '93, remember ? The goal then was to bring them down too.

I guess you can look at everything as suspect, but I want proof before I believe things, and after looking at it myself, I believe the "officialstory" - which just so happens to be agreed upon by The U.S, the al-Qaeda hijackers themselves (video of them declaring why they want to attack before ithappened), the current al-Qaeda leaders, and governments across the globe.

"call me out if im incorect, but couldn't the us have worked out a deal with al-queda prior to 9/11 which consisted only of 9/11 and hiding and anyinterest in iraq" if this was true then the current al-Qaeda leadership would have said something, no ? The idea of them working together is ridiculousanyway. The U.S never funded al-Qaeda, it funded the Mujahideen, who at the time did not show any signs that they would later attack the U.S....

Iraq and Afghanistan both look like huge L's, we gained almost nothing. Lost billions, and we are going to leave soon anyway. Now we have some Shiagovernment in Iraq that is dominated by Iran and Afghanistan is a mess with al-Qaeda still strong in Pakistan. The oil myth

..... Iraq is keeping its oil.

 

[nick0lis]

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

Originally Posted by Chicagos Finest 23

In some videos you can see explosions in different floors as the building falls.

Umm no, that's the floors popping out from the pressure as the top falls down. The windows and walls at the lower floors obviously get blown out.

anyway, I dare any of you conspiracy theorists to even try to answer my post on the first page. Just give me some laughs.

I answered the question in my previous post.

9/11 was about more than just Afghanistan and Iraq (which would not have been possible without it)...it has opened up the door to many options.

Primarily the expansion of the military industrial complex, historic expansion of executive powers and a free pass to do as we please in the middle east and northern africa.

You answered nothing. That "answer" has nothing to do with what I posted. So you believe that al-Qaeda is all run by the CIA and every single al-Qaeda terrorist is controlled by the U.S government ?

Originally Posted by nick0lis

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

I will stop posting on NT forever if you answer this post I made a while back on a different website:

This doesn't make any sense. Let's say the US government was indeed extremely corrupt to the point of attacking its own people. Now, let's say they either did 9/11 or helped it in being carried out.

** 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Refution **

What was gained ? (It gave Bush increased power, and allowed for the invasion of Afghanistan) - Why would Bush want to invade Afghanistan so badly ? - What has he gained in passing the patriot act ? Has he really gained money from Afghanistan for himself or abused the patriot act to the point of using it as a tool to gain money from ? Nope. By the way, why would al-Qaeda work with the U.S in claiming they in fact attacked the U.S only to have itself be bombed out by the U.S in return ?

Now, before you bring up Iraq.. it was not caused by 9/11. 9/11 was a part of it, but too small to be considered. The root cause was WMD's. Beyond this, why would al-Qaeda work to allow the U.S to invade Iraq and turn around and kill U.S soldiers there ? Why would al-Qaeda continue to accept 9/11 responsibility if the U.S is killing them with the reason that they caused 9/11 ? Does this make any sense to you at all ?

There's only 1 possible way to answer my questions: al-Qaeda is a U.S tool.

If you believe this, I pity you. Why would a U.S tool target Americans/American allies so indiscriminately ? Why is al-Qaeda so loose an organization that I, if I wanted to, could simply go to Afghanistan, learn how to make bombs, and go back to the U.S and kill Americans ? (Before 2001, although still possible today). Would the U.S want its own "tool" training thousands of radicals and sending them out with both a thrist for western blood and more importantly, the means in which to spill it ? Do you realize how big of a problem this would be for the whole western world ? The only answer to that is that every single al-Qaeda member is instructed by the U.S on what to attack. If you believe THIS, well... let's just hope you don't.

Until someone comes up with a valid response to this post, I will consider all 9/11 conspiracy theories disproven and simply copy paste this back when the issue is brought up again.

watch zeitgeist my friend, then maybe you wont be so sure of yourself?

Nice answer..... not.

The makers of that garbage movie made for sheep would not be able to answer my question either.

yes, they did answer every question you had, maybe just not the answer you wanted.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Do you really think that there would be an abundance of evidence of government involvement?

If there wasn't an admission and declassification about the Gulf of Tonkin incident...would there have been ANY way of knowing that is was fake?

The government said that our ship was attacked, the newspaper covered it as fact....who was to say different?

 

[numba1kickrocka]

Im geting sick of these threads

 

[mideastbeast]

one small ship attack incident in Vietnam =/= a massive attack in the heart of NYC and Washington DC. Much harder to hide that.

Also, the way I disproved 9/11 shows that both events are too different to be compared.

Let me say it again: "oh, so and so happened 40 years ago" =/= proof of 9/11 conspiracy. Keep trying though.

 

[joseph camel jr]

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Do you really think that there would be an abundance of evidence of government involvement?

If there wasn't an admission and declassification about the Gulf of Tonkin incident...would there have been ANY way of knowing that is was fake?

The government said that our ship was attacked, the newspaper covered it as fact....who was to say different?

Of course not.

The flip side of this, however, is that this lack of evidence implies....nothing.

So saying it's a possibility is of course correct. But that's all you can say. And that isn't much.

And that's a quite a conservative response to what you posted. And "abundance" of evidence? Try any.

 

[mideastbeast]

Word, 50 years ago i heard my friends grandfather stole money from his friend so today I got robbed, it has to be my friend who did it !

I have absolutely no proof, all logic goes against my friend being involved, but..... he would gain from the money. That combined with the fact that hisgrandpa might have did it 50 years ago shows that he was probably the one who robbed me !!

^

Do you see how stupid that sounds ? Just get over it, 9/11 was an attack by al-Qaeda. It's 2009. Move on.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Originally Posted by nick0lis


yes, they did answer every question you had, maybe just not the answer you wanted.

Thank you.


http://www.youtube.com/v/9_qBtOGnAAo&hl=en&fs=1

 

[mideastbeast]

More youtube videos, 0 proof.

Amazing how 1 paragraph I wrote in 15 minutes can kill an entire conspiracy theory

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

More youtube videos, 0 proof.

Amazing how 1 paragraph I wrote in 15 minutes can kill an entire conspiracy theory

You won the arguemtent you were having with yourself two pages ago

You're the man

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

The towers were always a goal of al-Qaeda. They got attacked in '93, remember ? The goal then was to bring them down too.

I guess you can look at everything as suspect, but I want proof before I believe things, and after looking at it myself, I believe the "official story" - which just so happens to be agreed upon by The U.S, the al-Qaeda hijackers themselves (video of them declaring why they want to attack before it happened), the current al-Qaeda leaders, and governments across the globe.

"call me out if im incorect, but couldn't the us have worked out a deal with al-queda prior to 9/11 which consisted only of 9/11 and hiding and any interest in iraq" if this was true then the current al-Qaeda leadership would have said something, no ? The idea of them working together is ridiculous anyway. The U.S never funded al-Qaeda, it funded the Mujahideen, who at the time did not show any signs that they would later attack the U.S....

Iraq and Afghanistan both look like huge L's, we gained almost nothing. Lost billions, and we are going to leave soon anyway. Now we have some Shia government in Iraq that is dominated by Iran and Afghanistan is a mess with al-Qaeda still strong in Pakistan. The oil myth

..... Iraq is keeping its oil.

But, a lot of the mujahideens were trained and operated by the U.S. and now they are infiltrated in other "terrorist" cell groups fundedby the U.S.

I am sure you have heard of this...Al-Qaida is the Arabic word which means "the base", and it was thebig file or document containing all the names of the "mujahideens" that the U.S. recruited and funded so they can fight off the Soviet Union inAghanistan in the Soviet-Afghanistan war in the 80s. Reagan was complicit and his administration had a huge hand in funding Islamist schools in places likePakistan and a big part of those training camps. They recruited all these men to use them as a means of power to be able to fight off the Soviet threat in thatregion.

I can go on with all the links such as that head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad Ayman al Zawahiri fought for the CIA in Bosnia, Zacarias Moussaoui fought forthe CIA in Chechnya , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fought for the CIA in Afghanistan, etc.

Some academic scholars now apply the "blowback" thesis, as in claiming that these American trained terrorist groups turned their backs on the U.S.,but I do not believe in it. It is because the "blowback" thesis denotes that the relationship between al-Qaida and the U.S. government (including itsintelligence apparatus) stopped in the wake of the Cold War. I truly believe that the CIA still uses them like they did during the Cold War and post Cold Waras a tool to enhance this War on Terror. This viewpoint is completely incorrect due to the fact that during the 1990s there is concrete evidence of linksbetween al-Qaida and the U.S. administration during the Clinton administration and Bush administration. This is even goes all the way to 2001, and still hashappened afterwards and to today. There is also evidence of the active collaborations between al-Qaida paramilitary groups in the Balkans and senior U.S.military advisors.

It is so obvious to me how Al-Qaida is a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence asset, and that is why I believe nothing of this bullcrap that comes out of the news orwhen it is reported by the CIA.

What do you mean the U.S. gained nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan, of course they did, in many ways. Do not get me started on the oil...That is not a myth.

 

[mideastbeast]

Obviously. 0 proof except for a few shady things that happened 40 years ago that have nothing to do with 9/11... and you can't answer a few simplequestions, but you have no problem believing the U.S was involved in killed 3000 people

If the judicial system had that standard it would be safe to say that there would be probably 20 times as many people in prison right now.

I'm done wasting my time here. Any reasonable minded person can see it's BS bought in too by sheep who want to feel like they have the inside knowledgeon this huge theory that everyone else is oblivious too and they are special, ignoring all counter-evidence and sticking to their.... "evidence" ....a youtube video and a few websites made by other conspiracy nuts.

Oh well, I guess the earth is flat too.

Good luck with your thread.

 

[mideastbeast]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

The towers were always a goal of al-Qaeda. They got attacked in '93, remember ? The goal then was to bring them down too.

I guess you can look at everything as suspect, but I want proof before I believe things, and after looking at it myself, I believe the "official story" - which just so happens to be agreed upon by The U.S, the al-Qaeda hijackers themselves (video of them declaring why they want to attack before it happened), the current al-Qaeda leaders, and governments across the globe.

"call me out if im incorect, but couldn't the us have worked out a deal with al-queda prior to 9/11 which consisted only of 9/11 and hiding and any interest in iraq" if this was true then the current al-Qaeda leadership would have said something, no ? The idea of them working together is ridiculous anyway. The U.S never funded al-Qaeda, it funded the Mujahideen, who at the time did not show any signs that they would later attack the U.S....

Iraq and Afghanistan both look like huge L's, we gained almost nothing. Lost billions, and we are going to leave soon anyway. Now we have some Shia government in Iraq that is dominated by Iran and Afghanistan is a mess with al-Qaeda still strong in Pakistan. The oil myth

..... Iraq is keeping its oil.

But, a lot of the mujahideens were trained and operated by the U.S. and now they are infiltrated in other "terrorist" cell groups funded by the U.S.

I am sure you have heard of this...Al-Qaida is the Arabic word which means "the base", and it was the big file or document containing all the names of the "mujahideens" that the U.S. recruited and funded so they can fight off the Soviet Union in Aghanistan in the Soviet-Afghanistan war in the 80s. Reagan was complicit and his administration had a huge hand in funding Islamist schools in places like Pakistan and a big part of those training camps. They recruited all these men to use them as a means of power to be able to fight off the Soviet threat in that region.

I can go on with all the links such as that head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad Ayman al Zawahiri fought for the CIA in Bosnia, Zacarias Moussaoui fought for the CIA in Chechnya , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fought for the CIA in Afghanistan, etc.

Some academic scholars now apply the "blowback" thesis, as in claiming that these American trained terrorist groups turned their backs on the U.S., but I do not believe in it. It is because the "blowback" thesis denotes that the relationship between al-Qaida and the U.S. government (including its intelligence apparatus) stopped in the wake of the Cold War. I truly believe that the CIA still uses them like they did during the Cold War and post Cold War as a tool to enhance this War on Terror. This viewpoint is completely incorrect due to the fact that during the 1990s there is concrete evidence of links between al-Qaida and the U.S. administration during the Clinton administration and Bush administration. This is even goes all the way to 2001, and still has happened afterwards and to today. There is also evidence of the active collaborations between al-Qaida paramilitary groups in the Balkans and senior U.S. military advisors.

It is so obvious to me how Al-Qaida is a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence asset, and that is why I believe nothing of this bullcrap that comes out of the news or when it is reported by the CIA.

What do you mean the U.S. gained nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan, of course they did, in many ways. Do not get me started on the oil...That is not a myth.

By all means, give me those links. Just make sure they are from fair sources because I won't even bother opening them if not.

Al-Qaeda is a huge loose network, and now it is more an idea than anything else, with thousands of "followers". How the U.S can control all is beyondme. Why they would "collaborate" together then go and kill each other makes 0 sense. I'll just wait for your links I guess.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Thanks.

Bye.

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

By all means, give me those links. Just make sure they are from fair sources because I won't even bother opening them if not.

My professor has written a lot on this topic. He is a respected academic scholar. However, to you, you would brush him off as a conspiracytheorist. I will provide you an article he wrote. He does back a lot of his information from government documents and primary sources. This article is anexcerpt from his book America's "War on Terrorism". Here is an example I was talking about about how the Clintonadministration funded Islamist paramilitary groups in Bosnia...

...

"From the Horse's Mouth"

Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia, which consisted in promoting the formation of "Islamic brigades", have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Senate Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

"Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.


(...)

Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ... TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96]

(Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html. The original document is on the website of the U.S. Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htmhttp://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm; see also Washington Post, 22 September 1999, Emphasis added)




You can read the whole article here:
Al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718http://www.globalresearch...p?context=va&aid=7718

 

[cashoutkeith]

I dont put anything pass our goverment.
The thing that has me pointing at conspiracy is the whole way things went down that day. arabic men get on planes with boxcutters
took over the planes. Flew the planes with great percission even though they learned how to fly at flight school for small aircrafts flew at very low heights
and manage to crash into buildings in new york which has so many other buildings that they could have hit trying to hit their target, but not only once butfour times
and the plane that hit the pentagon was damn near on the ground...I just dont see how that plane didnt blow up right there. These guys must have had god orallah on their side.

I see things like this flying a jet at that size when you learned how to fly at a flight school with small planes is like
driving a civic around from 16 to 18 and then at 19 hopping in a stock car and competing in the Indy 500. maybe its
just me and the lack of knowledge i have on the flight school that these guys went to. I mean if you can hijack a plane and fly it over
where our president lays his head at and get the plane close enough to either A. crash in a field or B. Hit the pentagon which i thought was the safest placein the world, well guess not, you are blessed or someone made sure you were able to do it. but a maybe it wasnt a conspiracy only god knows

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

Originally Posted by Primavera Vills

We're livin' in a corrupt government....hell, our forefathers were corrupt.

Truth. Everybody with power's corrupt.

 

[Los Angeles]

the government is capable of doing anything they want, and its a damn shame.