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

[mideastbeast]

Originally Posted by I R Andre

I already answered most of your comments. You said Osama is dead ? Explain the constant release of new tapes, mentioning new events

Despite those doctored video's there has been no proof of life- that's why.

I already did, they answered nothing.
They bodied every point you made, just not the answer you wanted.

I already answered most of your comments.
No you didn't what you did do tho is write a bunch of stuff thinking no one was gonna actually read it. I did, and then explained and refuted all your points and "facts".








No.

and nice proof of Osama being dead, you really convinced me there

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

So we have an audio tape of KSM himself admitting to the 9/11 attacks without any torture. He gets captured, and then writes another confession letter. First confession was to a journalist without any torture. Secondly, Fouda lied about the dates to escape the myths that it was him who gave KSM away to the U.S. There are doubts about that and the real date of the tape, but it was dropped BEFORE he was captured, and no one is doubting what was in it. KSM says he was misquoted afterwards when trying to deny involvement, but he had already spilled the beans and sounded damn proud of the attacks. This interview is not the only evidence. We have the videos of the hijackers THEMSELVES, osama HIMSELF, and other al-Qaeda leaders.

Who really knows why Fouda lied, but he did. Again, it was a distorted audio tape. KSM says they misquoted him and fabricated portions of it and exaggerated it. So then again now, all you have is Fouda's word and KSM's word.

Obviously they are ther for self interest. That means nothng. Like I said before, it is a contract, and they were chosen by the elected Iraqi officials. Why are you even arguing this at this point ? The Iraqi's keep their money and can easily kick them out and mine their own oil once they have the technology.

But you are trying to claim is not for oil profits on behalf of the occupiers. I showed you how it is. I doubt Iraqis will kick them out and I guarantee you it will be the oil conglomerates who will get the most profits out of this. The instance Iraqi regime would even think of threatening the oil grip by these companies, you can damn well bet that regime would be overthrown. The U.S. went to war with Saddam because he was threatening the Western oil distribution and supply by annexing Kuwait. That is why this regime propped up in place is ensured by the Allies to be more favourable to Western interests.

Once again, you ignore my question. If the tape is fake why isn't Osama or al-Qaeda saying so ? Secondly, the FBI hasn't listed it because there is not enough direct evidence linking the man himself to the attack. KSM was the one who was chief of the operation, not Osama. The tape only shows Osama and al-Qaeda claiming responsibility. All we know for sure is that al-Qaeda was the group that carried out the attacks. If this really was an inside the job then the opposite would be true, the FBI would have immedietely put up Osama as wanted for 9/11... no ? Either way, not charging him does not mean he is innocent and you have not a shred of evidence that points to U.S involvement, but there is plenty pointing to al-Qaeda, including Osama and the Hijackers OWN WORDS.

Is Osama even alive?Who knows where the hell he is. As for Al-Qaeda, as I said, they are not real and are just propped up. None of them in these copy cat Al-Qaeda groups know enough about the authenticity of these tapes.

But you claim there is no evidence point to Bin Laden's involvement. Isn't Bin Laden supposedly the mastermind and the one who ordered the attacks? That is what the government and the CIA have been feeding people all these years. All I am saying is that the videotapes, audiotapes, etc., there is no guaranteed verification they are authentic or even real. No proof that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks nor that Osama was.

? We already know who all the hiackers are. They made tapes before the attacks, they are documented as dead. None are "alive" that was proven false. I wont even talk about your bizzare teory of faked security footage and audio recordings ? Just read the last part of what you wrote again and think about how stupid it sounds. That, and once again, you have ZERO proof.

Again, if their authenticity can be proved and in a federal jury court that it is indeed them with full on clear evident proof, then maybe there is reason to believe it. Supposedly, some of those hijackers were mistaken for others being alive, then where are the real ones? Oh yeah, and they found passports of the hijackers that feel from the debri that hit the towers.Riiiigghhhttttt. That planted evidence is such bullcrap to me.

I question those numbers. First of all, the fact that ANYONE said al-Qaeda already means you are wrong. Al-Qaeda exists, unlike you tried to claim (there are letters between Osama and Zarqawi.... videos of osama calling Zarqawi the prince of Iraq). It says that 7% of "captured" - that doesn't mean the %age of those fighting, especially because most of al-Qaeda's attacks are suicide bombings. Either way, there is no denying al-Qaeda had the largest impact (kicked out U.N, released most propoganda, controlled entire cities, sparked the entire sunni/shia conflict) and did the most damage.


The al-qaeda i am talking about are the ones who are linked the original al-Qaeda and continue to fight against U.S forces and kill civilians.

Again, if the authenticity of this can be proved, then maybe there is a reason to believe it.

I showed you the statistics and that is how it is. There are not that many suicide bombings compared to actual ground battles with these groups. So then that stumps your theory how they are mostly fighting "Al-Qaeda" operatives. The U.S. is mostly fighting locals who joined the resistance movement. Also, as Juan Cole stated, those claiming they are with Al-Qaeda use that term meaning as boogeymen and not the real ones.

As Bush has stated:

A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .
The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .

The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/http://www.salon.com/opin...wald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/
Also note how he says that the "smallest" group among those that the U.S. are battling in Iraq, Bush described them not as "Al Qaeda," but as those "affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda."

MidEast, we are just going around in circles with you. Obviously, you have your own mindset, as we have our own. I believe I answered all your questions logically, but since you believe in your truth, then you will never see it my way as I will never see yours. You say we did not answer you, but we did. As someone states, it is just not the answers you are looking for.

This can go on all damn day and we will still be back at square one.


So again, you ignore the other evidence and say: "all you have is Fouda's word and KSM's word." Nope. We have Osama's word, TheHijackers' words and the U.S governments word.

And since when did western oil companies winning contracts mean that the profits are going "on behalf of the occupiers" - that's flat out wrong.They are being paid to mine oil that the Iraqi's otherwise can't. That's it. Nothing goes to the U.S government.

Again, all the evidence you just go back to the old "no evidence it is authentic" line. The burden of proof is on you, as the conspiracy theorist.Show me proof it is false. Obviously he is alive, he just released a new audio talking about Gaza.

The groups name is called: "al-Qaeda in Iraq". I don't care what bush said. Osama recognized them as al-Qaeda members in Iraq. Their flag saysal-Qaeda on it. Their videos have al-Qaeda stamps on them. You just keep saying "propped" up - Ducktales. al-Qaeda is real and just as dangerous asever.

and yes, we can go on forever. It's pointless discussing it when you get points shot down and keep going back to old statements and clinging to the falsehope that EVERYTHING is fake and forged by the big bad CIA.

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

So again, you ignore the other evidence and say: "all you have is Fouda's word and KSM's word." Nope. We have Osama's word, The Hijackers' words and the U.S governments word.

And since when did western oil companies winning contracts mean that the profits are going "on behalf of the occupiers" - that's flat out wrong. They are being paid to mine oil that the Iraqi's otherwise can't. That's it. Nothing goes to the U.S government.

Again, all the evidence you just go back to the old "no evidence it is authentic" line. The burden of proof is on you, as the conspiracy theorist. Show me proof it is false. Obviously he is alive, he just released a new audio talking about Gaza.

The groups name is called: "al-Qaeda in Iraq". I don't care what bush said. Osama recognized them as al-Qaeda members in Iraq. Their flag says al-Qaeda on it. Their videos have al-Qaeda stamps on them. You just keep saying "propped" up - Ducktales. al-Qaeda is real and just as dangerous as ever.

and yes, we can go on forever. It's pointless discussing it when you get points shot down and keep going back to old statements and clinging to the false hope that EVERYTHING is fake and forged by the big bad CIA.

Again, if this was all authentic as you claim they are, I am sure they would be used to try Osama and formally charge him for his alleged role inthe attacks. But why haven't they?Wasn't he supposedly involved in the whole orchestration of 9/11?It is because none of it (videotapes, audiotapes) isseen as hard enough or concrete evidence to formally indict him. Period.

And yes, I will keep stressing the authenticity of it all because that is what it comes down to. I choose to not believe in sources that come from the U.S.government and the CIA who have repeatedly LIED to the U.S. population (ie. WMDs in Iraq, Saddam linked to Al-Qaeda as justification for U.S. invasion).

I know about the supposed "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq. They also call themselves "Al-Qaeda in Mesapotamia". Well, you can go on and believe in thembeing real, as I will keep believing they are propped up. The whole Al-Qaeda takeover in Iraq is such a myth to me for obvious reasons I choose to believe in.

None of our points were shot down, but you keep on believing that if it makes you feel better.

 

[mideastbeast]

They are not U.S or CIA sources. They are video and web releases from al-Qaeda itself. Known al-Qaeda websites upload the videos, or they are handed tonetworks such as al-Jazeera through a network of messengers.

Don't take my word for it on al-Qaeda in Iraq, listen to the interviews with Iraqi's who survived under their rule in Ramadi.

here you go: http://www.time.com/time/...le/0,8599,1572796,00.html obviouslyanother forged article written by CIA agents.

just another example of points being shot down. (so far: the oil profit claim, the "al-qaeda is fake" claim, the "al-qaeda in iraq doesn'texist claim" among others

)

 

[barack 0drama]

Originally Posted by I R Andre

@ dude who used the hitler example as "proof" of that the U.S did 9/11... these are the kind of people I am dealing with

The false flag strategy is very old, you sound stupid. N post that 911myth link all you want cuz I read all of them and none of things in these videos are addressed on that site. N besides that site is just theories too.

�

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

They are not U.S or CIA sources. They are video and web releases from al-Qaeda itself. Known al-Qaeda websites upload the videos, or they are handed to networks such as al-Jazeera through a network of messengers.

Don't take my word for it on al-Qaeda in Iraq, listen to the interviews with Iraqi's who survived under their rule in Ramadi.

here you go: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1572796,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/...le/0,8599,1572796,00.html obviously another forged article written by CIA agents.

just another example of points being shot down. (so far: the oil profit claim, the "al-qaeda is fake" claim, the "al-qaeda in iraq doesn't exist claim" among others

)

But, a lot of these sources before presented to the media go through government and intelligence channels then go back to the media.

I read some of that article you posted and I will stand by what I believe to be that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) is just a convenient smokescreen andboogeyman for the the U.S. government to use to keep American troops in Iraq. What you posted does not shoot down my beliefs about AQI. How do you know theywere not propped up by intelligence services and now fully function as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq"? The reporting in the media due to the U.S. government andother media outlets with agendas makes repetitive semantic and rhetorical leap to refer to all insurgency forces as "Al Qaeda." The issue is thatthey classify any Iraqi insurgent support even of supposed AQI objectives, active or passive, as a reason to categorize all insurgents groups as Al-Qaeda. As Ipresented to you, this whole "Al-Qaeda" nonsense does not even make up that much of the insurgencies in Iraq, and they are the smallest group.

We are going around in circles again.

And heeelllzzz to the no young man, you have not shot anything down. You only reinforced my beliefs, so thanks for that. But, you are still cool in my book.

 

[ph3n0m3n0n]

In todays world, I wouldn't be surprised if it was our government. Anyone who hasn't been on this since the inception of the idea to even carry it outcan't say anything. And why does the United States have to have full control over the mythical Al Qaeda group to set this up? I've read that in here afew times from a couple of people and it still makes no sense to me. T

 

[mr delorean]

Originally Posted by NuMba1KiCkrocka

Im geting sick of these threads

they are at least a quarterly event at niketalk.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by mr delorean

Originally Posted by NuMba1KiCkrocka

Im geting sick of these threads

they are at least a quarterly event at niketalk.

If by quarterly you mean every other day, then I agree. These threads are redundant.

 

[tbone95860]

9/11 was no inside job

Get over it

 

[supermanrt41]

abeautifulhaze wrote:

---

You're not deading anything...just showing your close-mindedness by asking people to answer questions that have already been answered a dozen times...and then posting other people theories..who are no more in the know than us...and acting like you closed the case.

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

^ I already know all about what you are posting, probably a lot more than you. Just because hitler did something 60 years ago does not mean that 9/11 was carried out by the U.S government.

Linking bush to hitler does nothing to help your argument.

You're so right my friend....history has ZERO impact on how today is carried out....its not like elected leaders read books about previousleaders and governments or anything...I mean, Cuba doesn't hold a bitter taste towards the U.S. for over 50 years because we tried numerous times to obtainthe island as our own...naw, they just don't like us because they're communist and anti-American

....I mean, it'd be crazy of me to suggest that Obama has read up on Lincolnand FDR to use them as guides to his political career, or to use FDR as a guide on how he could better handle a fragile and breaking economy....cause I mean,Lincoln was over 50 years ago...FDR was about 50 years ago....naw, that's way too many years for them to have any connections...So, I take it you'reall for banning history classes in public education?

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

They are not U.S or CIA sources. They are video and web releases from al-Qaeda itself. Known al-Qaeda websites upload the videos, or they are handed to networks such as al-Jazeera through a network of messengers.

Don't take my word for it on al-Qaeda in Iraq, listen to the interviews with Iraqi's who survived under their rule in Ramadi.

here you go: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1572796,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/...le/0,8599,1572796,00.html obviously another forged article written by CIA agents.

just another example of points being shot down. (so far: the oil profit claim, the "al-qaeda is fake" claim, the "al-qaeda in iraq doesn't exist claim" among others

)

You repeated my post by saying you knew that already....great response, completely killed my facts.
Its not like the U.S. government would EVER involve themselves in anything as shady and corrupt as an attack on their own people......oh wait, they had plannedsomething similar way back in JFK's days....oh wait, they've sponsored overthrows of democratic and freely elected leaders or countries to prop uppuppet dictators for control over foreign natural resources (Hawaii, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Chile, the Phillipines...want me to continue, oris that enough bloodshed of foreigners and foreign leaders to back up my conspiracy nut claims?...oh wait, those have almost all been proven by DECLASSIFIED USGOVT DOCS. My bad, I knew reading wasn't fundamental and I should've stuck to my darn i-Pod and internet porn)
Go read some books other than the ones which solely confirm to your closed minded views. Try reading something that might challenge you to think for once,because your responses have not invoked me to look into any of your claims. All you've done is respond with responses that are open-ended and proveabsolutely nothing and attack others. Isn't that called denial? (I know, I know, I really should stop reading to further my knowledge

) You claim the "conspiracy nuts" keep putting up youtube videos thathave been disproven, and yet you post a link to some site "disproving" all the claims countering yours...only to find that its a site that looks asthough a high school student made it for a computer class project.

[font=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] We are imperfect. We cannot expect perfect government.[/font]
[font=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] ~William Howard Taft[/font]

My fellow NT member, I do hope you open that mind of yours for not only your own sake, but everyone else's as well. To claim the U.S. governmentcouldn't prevent this from happening is nonsense. The most technologically advanced government couldn't stop those planes or even a plot to attack itscitizens? Please. We've thwarted how many "terror plots" since 9/11 worldwide? Yeah, ponder that one....
And you shooting down the simple fact that we, the U.S. government and taxpayer money, created al-Qaeda is ridiculous. We're the reason they exist.We're the people who gave them U.S. weapons, U.S. money and anything their hearts desired without questions asked because our government was so dead set onhindering any Soviet progress in Afghanistan.
History is a powerful tool, and for you to say Hitler's story that was posted has no connection to 9/11 and the Patriot Act is so sadly misinformed.History doesn't repeat itself, but if we don't study our past, how can we prevent similar failures/shortcomings in our futures?
To act as though our government's hands have remained clean since its conception is beyond blind ingnorance. We've proven to be one of the most covertand aggressive nations in our short history.

And once again: Don't get it twisted, I LOVE my country and I know that in order to maintain our prominence and success throughout the course of time - weHAVE to make sacrifices here and there to continue with our progess....but that doesn't mean I'm required to love the government we have elected ortake pride in the decisions they make. Stupid democracy and my right to voice an opinion ro state facts that go against our leaders and their views...shame onme.

 

[mideastbeast]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by MidEastBeast

They are not U.S or CIA sources. They are video and web releases from al-Qaeda itself. Known al-Qaeda websites upload the videos, or they are handed to networks such as al-Jazeera through a network of messengers.

Don't take my word for it on al-Qaeda in Iraq, listen to the interviews with Iraqi's who survived under their rule in Ramadi.

here you go: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1572796,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/...le/0,8599,1572796,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/...le/0,8599,1572796,00.html obviously another forged article written by CIA agents.

just another example of points being shot down. (so far: the oil profit claim, the "al-qaeda is fake" claim, the "al-qaeda in iraq doesn't exist claim" among others

)

But, a lot of these sources before presented to the media go through government and intelligence channels then go back to the media.

I read some of that article you posted and I will stand by what I believe to be that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) is just a convenient smokescreen and boogeyman for the the U.S. government to use to keep American troops in Iraq. What you posted does not shoot down my beliefs about AQI. How do you know they were not propped up by intelligence services and now fully function as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq"? The reporting in the media due to the U.S. government and other media outlets with agendas makes repetitive semantic and rhetorical leap to refer to all insurgency forces as "Al Qaeda." The issue is that they classify any Iraqi insurgent support even of supposed AQI objectives, active or passive, as a reason to categorize all insurgents groups as Al-Qaeda. As I presented to you, this whole "Al-Qaeda" nonsense does not even make up that much of the insurgencies in Iraq, and they are the smallest group.

We are going around in circles again.

And heeelllzzz to the no young man, you have not shot anything down. You only reinforced my beliefs, so thanks for that. But, you are still cool in my book.

, same to you.

I think we are at the point where we just agree to disagree, it was a nice discussion though, since you know what you are talking about, unlike a lot of othersin here.

 

[btonnt]

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.
Just have to say I found it interesting how you enter the thread with the outright declaration of imposing your own closed mindset with the tabbeing an unwillingness to consider any other "theories" (which I guess we can suppose include any facts that lay outside ofwhat is given as the official report...?) that challenge or bring question to your original viewpoint.

In the same sense, anyone could have brought up any of the evidence or inconsistencies in the official report which would support their viewpoint and dismissany other evidence that questioned their opinion. For instance I could say, "If you can't explain to me how jet fuel melts steel or a passport fliesthrough a fireball which completely destroys a jetliner and completely pulverizes concrete" than I'm unwilling to have any sort of discussion on thematter.

Of course, no one did that and it would be counterproductive to do so. I just wonder why not welcome open discussion that includes all the facts? Why notconsider all the evidence and determine which theory fits best, the official government theory versus the alternate theory ortheories presented. Because in whichever case we are dealing with what are in fact both theories. and inconsidering the evidence I've seen and the testimony I've heard from those actually there I'd say the science best fits the alternate theories ofwhat happend or at least that the official report was far from substantial or conclusive in any way. I just think having a mindset where you say (either toyourself or others), "if anyone questions the motive or involvement of the individuals which have been declared (by the government) as my"enemy" and as responsible for the attacks, then I will not even hear anything you have to say" is so irrational that it's mind boggling tome. Especially considering that Al-Qaeda actually was in fact a U.S. tool which has been addressed several times over. It's too bad the entire argumentcircled around only that when much more could have been discussed...how about the actual identities of the accused hijackers? How about the science involvedin the collapse? Testimony from survivors? Footage of what hit the pentagon being withheld? etc. etc. None of that is important evidence in formingone's viewpoint?

"Al-Qaeda: open and shut"....that's it?

I'm not trying to get this all started again since it seems like it phased out, just pointing out that I think that it's not only counterproductive butarguably even dangerous to be that close minded. I'm glad the others addressed the points in such a thorough and thoughtful waythough. and I hope that no one else would reject investigation or discussion on a single supposition that doesnt even hold up much less hold up enough tocompletely discredit all other evidence. and still this was a good discussion to read through. I hope more and more people start looking into this stuff as Iwas just someone who'd brush it off as "conspiracy theory" as well and only just recently started giving it the attention it deserves.

 

[nnarum]

One more thing...

 

[seniosoul]

Immortal Technique speaks some truth

 

[JD617]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

This again???

First one of 2009, right? Who was keeping track of the 2008 total, Dirty?