In a sane world, you'd be the crackpot. You've consistently proven yourself to be an incredibly foolish and cowardly individual. You sit at home talking about how we need to fight for other people's freedom, yet you are unwilling to do the fighting yourself. You think we can spread liberty through force, and you believe that destroying our currency and the lives of future Americans is an acceptable cost. You can't understand that fighting for other people's freedom means nothing if we have to give up freedom here to do it.

It's really no surprise that your only response to these questions is, "uhhh....you guys are crazy!" If, in fact, it was not Bin Laden that was responsible for 9/11, then it undermines our foreign policy of the last ten years. It would mean that we sent thousands of soldiers to their death for no reason. Not that that's a problem for you - even if there wasn't a real justification, the humanitarian justification works just fine, in your mind. You'd order more "humanitarian" attacks tomorrow, if you could...as long as it's someone else doing the fighting.

The founders would be disgusted at the blind complacency that exists in this country today, and I am too. What makes you think your government is so trustworthy? People do not become politicians by being noble - it's quite the opposite. What I find troubling is that some of you, who can so easily point out the folly of religion, have substituted faith in god for faith in government.

5/6/2011 6:09:10 PM

^

5/6/2011 6:15:58 PM

^^ but you aren't ever going to fix problems by ignoring the past. Things BUILT up to how they are now, and they have to be dismantled methodically.

You can't just flip a switch to how YOU think things are supposed to be and think everything's going to be fine.

Ignoring the political/ideological reasons for the wars, resource contention underlies all of this. People, rightfully so, are concerned about resources and safety, and have good reason to be.

5/6/2011 6:19:59 PM

^^^Thank you. That about sums up the people crying "nutjob". From this point on, I won't be responding to ad hominem attacks. I will respond to legitimate arguments.

Resuming the on-topic discussion

This is the only video evidence that has been released of the pentagon attack, and it took a lawsuit to procure it. Surely this is not the only footage the Pentagon has of its exterior? Apparently the Pentagon is using a single horribly shitty webcam for it's security footage. If it's legitimate, why did they refuse to release it in the first place?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 6:42:49 PM

Quote :

"In a sane world, you'd be the crackpot."

Oh, this is fucking golden. "I'm not crazy! It's everybody else who's crazy!"

I'm also digging adultswim's martyr act. "Look at how civil I'm being in spite of your brutal internet comments! A lesser man would have resorted to fisticuffs by now."

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2011 7:19:48 PM

I posted this article on the last page, but will anyone else read this and tell me what they think? The whole thing is very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

Some highlights:

Quote :

"The White House insisted that it was to appoint the commission's chair, leading some to question the commission's "independence". The initial person appointed to head the commission, Henry Kissinger, has been accused by many of having been involved in past government coverups in South America (specifically, the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile), and of having on-going business relationships with members of the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia."

Quote :

"While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions: They would be allowed to testify jointly; They would not be required to take an oath before testifying; The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;"

Quote :

"Philip Shenon, a New York Times reporter, in a book released in February 2008 entitled "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation" claims that Zelikow had closer ties with the White House than he publicly disclosed and that he tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration’s responsibility and furthering its anti-Iraq agenda. According to the book, Zelikow had at least four private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, and appears to have had many frequent telephone conversations with people in the White House. The Commission staff kept a record only of calls Zelikow received, but Government Accountability Office records show his frequent calls to the 456 telephone exchange in the 202 area code used exclusively by the White House. Also, the book states that Zelikow ordered his assistant to stop keeping a log of his calls, although the Commission's general counsel overruled him. Zelikow had pledged to have no contact with Rove and Condoleezza Rice during his work for the 9/11 Commission."

Quote :

"Former FBI director Louis Freeh criticized the 9/11 Commission for ignoring key evidence from Able Danger, which he alleged resulted in false statements being made in the final 9/11 Commission report. For example, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks," which Mr. Freeh stated appears to be false. He stated that Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta, the alleged ring-leader of the 19 hijackers, as an Al Qaida man active in the United States and was tracking him for many months."

The last quotation is especially interesting, but in the Able Danger Wikipedia page, it says Mohammed Atta was not identified, and five people were ordered not to testify in a 2005 investigation.

Quote :

"In December 2006, a sixteen-month investigation by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded "Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to September 11, 2001," and dismissed other assertions that have fueled 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Senate Judiciary Committee first attempted to investigate the matter for the Senate in September, 2005. The Pentagon "ordered five key witnesses not to testify", according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. "That looks to me as if it may be obstruction of the committee's activities," Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said at the start of his committee's hearing into the unit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger


edit: I also found thought this was pretty funny (from the main 9/11 commission article)

Quote :

"Although government reports are not known for their prose, the Report garnered much praise for its literary qualities. Richard Posner, writing for the New York Times, praised it as "uncommonly lucid, even riveting" and called it "an improbable literary triumph". The Report rose to the top of several bestseller lists and was praised by reviewers for its readability and narrative strength. In a surprising move, the National Book Foundation named the Report a finalist in its 2004 National Book Awards's non-fiction category."

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 9:09:38 PM

You realize that there exists a Wikipedia page about perceived controversy regarding the 9/11 commission report says absolutely nothing in regards to the veracity of any of the individual claims within it, right? So stop linking the page and get over it. There is "controversy" regarding vaccinations causing autism which has been thoroughly discredited, and yet the "controversy" remains.

I'm going to slow this down for you because you appear to be drifting to many topics that aren't even tangentially related to "Did Osama really orchestrate 9/11?".

One of your responses to evidence provided by Lumex was "You mean the hijackers?" and a link to a site suggesting that many of the hijackers are still alive. This leads me to believe that part of your thesis regarding Osama not being involved with 9/11 somehow involves the fact that the people identified by the 9/11 commission were not actually the hijackers.

Now, follow with me. The only evidence you've given (and in fact the only "evidence" there is at all) are reports mere days after the event suggesting that the hijackers were some place else and not on the plane. Every single one of these reports has been redacted by their original publishers and explained as mistaken identity because of the confusion caused by a major terrorist event and transliteration of Arabic names.

I even showed you in the case of a particular one where the BBC admitted their mistake, fixed it, then 5 years later addressed the conspiracy theorists directly by reinforcing the knowledge that the original page was mistaken and left only for archive purposes.

(The FBI quotation in the editorial is not even necessary for this point. They were simply following up with the FBI for journalistic effect 5 years after the fact to drive the point home that there is no controversy regarding the identification of the hijackers).

Now, given that there is no evidence for the claim "the hijackers listed in the 9/11 commission report were not actually the hijackers" and mountains of evidence in the form of the flight records, video camera surveillance at the airports, eye witness accounts, etc detailed in the 9/11 commission report a reasonable person would conclude that your thesis has been rendered invalid.

That you continue to cling to this thesis despite contradictory evidence, and then spout more nonsense about things which you find incredulous but still have no actual bearing on the veracity of the 9/11 commission report and absolutely nothing with whether Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 indicates that you are not a reasonable person and do not actually care about the evidence.

This, d#s, is what I mean when I say "9/11 conspiracies are quackery". There is compelling evidence that the event happened generally speaking as the 9/11 commission reports. Some details may be off for sure, but generally speaking it is supported wholly by evidence. The conspiracies have been thoroughly debunked.

adultswim if you don't respond to this with an acknowledgement that you were wrong about the hijackers' identities or with some compelling evidence to support this thesis beyond redacted articles suffering from admitted mistaken identities then I will be forced to consider everything you post as unreasonable ramblings of someone who is completely divorced from reality.

5/6/2011 10:23:13 PM

After reading the entire site I posted (which I should have done in the first place--in my defense I was at work and didn't have time) I admit that I was completely wrong about the hijackers, given the information from the website that I posted. There is no legitimate proof that I know of that the hijackers are not who the government says they are.

Quote :

"You realize that there exists a Wikipedia page about perceived controversy regarding the 9/11 commission report says absolutely nothing in regards to the veracity of any of the individual claims within it, right"

Did you read it? What do you think? Falsifying information, ignoring valuable information, Bush and Cheney refusing to testify separately or take an oath, commission members claiming it was set up to fail. Is that not strange to you? I plan to read the entire report when I get a chance this week.

What do you think about the Pentagon refusing to release video of the plane hitting its headquarters?

Quote :

"I'm going to slow this down for you because you appear to be drifting to many topics that aren't even tangentially related to "Did Osama really orchestrate 9/11?"."

I should have picked a better title. More like "Is the government telling the truth about 9/11?"

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 10:36:51 PM

Quote :

"What do you think about the Pentagon refusing to release video of the plane hitting its headquarters?"

Where have you read that they "refused" anything? What makes you think they actually have more footage to be made public? Are you expecting the security cameras on the section of the building that got hit to be functional?

What point are you trying to make anyway? What about the plane crashing into the building do you think did not happen as described by the 9/11 report?

5/6/2011 11:45:52 PM

My biggest question, if the government DID in fact plan the September 11th attacks is: why would they target the Pentagon and either the WH or the Capitol, whichever United 93 was intended to hit? This simply does not make sense.

The intended effect of rallying the American people could have been accomplished with one or two aircraft and the threat would have been no less credible.

Why needlessly complicate the plan and make it 4? Furthermore, why needlessly complicate it by making it something that occurred so publicly (ie supposed hijacking) instead of something like a car bomb which could have had as much impact, but been much more controlled?

Perhaps an argument could be made that UBL was not the mastermind of the attacks, but to argue that it was the willful act of the US government defies logic.

5/7/2011 3:37:09 AM

I've came all the way from chit chat to tell you Osama said he did it.

/thread

SN: Its a fucking word Armageddon up in here

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2011 7:50:29 AM

I don't think anyone is saying the US orchestrated the attacks.

I do find it funny how nearly everyone has blind trust in the government's word that UBL did it, when even the Brad Cooper case (Chit Chat) showed all of TWW first hand and in real time that the even at the state level, the government will stop at nothing, including planting evidence, to get the conviction they want. UBL had been a priority target for years before the attack, and after linking it to al-qaeda its not a stretch for them to pin it on UBL at using every measure necessary.

I, for one, find this intriguing.

5/7/2011 9:03:45 AM

Quote :

"smc/adultswim"

5/7/2011 11:36:57 AM

NEOCONS!!!!!!!

5/7/2011 11:59:43 AM

can we just btt any of the 40+ page threads where we have already discussed this with salisburyboy?

5/7/2011 12:03:18 PM

Quote :

"Where have you read that they "refused" anything? What makes you think they actually have more footage to be made public? Are you expecting the security cameras on the section of the building that got hit to be functional?"

Yeah they did release the security footage. The security systems recorded at a very low frame rate (about 1 frame per second) which although likely sufficient to record the activities of people around the building were not intended to be able to capture an event like a high speed impact. When they were installed the size of full video recordings for all the hundreds of cameras and cost associated was seen as not worth it and they, like many ATM manufacturers and bargain security systems of the time, figured 1 frame per second would be good enough.

5/7/2011 12:07:37 PM

^^^^
^^^
^^

Quote :

"for those of you who find this thread offensive to your TSB sensibilities, you may offer your opinion in message_topic.aspx?topic=612491. Otherwise, please leave this thread to those who wish to evaluate the subject on its merits"

5/7/2011 12:08:55 PM

i'm gonna try to speed this along:
SUMMARY: 9/11 WAS A GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED STAGED FAKE "TERRORIST" ATTACK

Now over four and a half years removed from the events of 9/11/01, it’s past time to be bluntly honest. The 9/11 attacks were an inside job. Beyond any reasonable doubt. After looking at the evidence, there can be no serious debate on this and you cannot honestly deny it. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not a “conspiracy theory” that the government was involved in 9/11. It’s a conspiracy fact. It’s documented. All one has to do is seriously look at the publically available evidence, most of which comes from “mainstream” sources. The 9/11 attacks were a government-sponsored staged “terrorist” event, and a psychological warfare operation upon the American people and the world. The U.S. government was planning to go to war in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, and the neo-conservatives surrounding the Bush Administration were planning to go to war to take control of the Middle East and Central Asia region long before 9/11. The 9/11 attacks were the "catalyzing event" (that PNAC documents even called for) and pretext needed for these wars. The attacks were also used as the pretext to expand the power of government and rachet up the police state in America and other nations around the world.

The “official” story on 9/11 is completely absurd. Even the mainstream media is starting to admit that there are many serious problems and questions with the “official” story. Osama bin laden and 19 Arabs did not pull off these attacks. The did not have the means or the ability. The supposed “hijackers” who allegedly piloted the planes were actually poor pilots who could barely even fly a Cessna. And how did bin Laden get the U.S. Air Force to stand down and not intercept the hijacked aircraft? The idea of a vast “al-Qaeda” network is a hoax, and to the extent that it actually exists it was created by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies. The government actually aided and protected many of the “terrorists.” High-level government officials hindered FBI investigations into suspected terrorists shortly before 9/11. Bin Laden was framed using phony audio and video tapes. The 19 men named as the "hijackers" were framed using stolen identities. Many of these men turned up alive after 9/11. Mossad and Israeli spies were instrumental in framing the Arabs, as well as carrying out the attacks on a operational and logistical level. And the day of 9/11, the government was running drills of jetliners crashing into the Pentagon. These drills provided the operational cover to allow the attacks to occur. The hijacked planes were further used as a cover for the fact that explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center buildings.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF GOVERNMENT CARRYING OUT ATTACKS OR USING DECEPTION TO START WARS

Do you think it is impossible for the U.S. Government to kill it’s own citizens and use deception in order to start wars? In the 1960s, the U.S. Government drafted a plan (called “Operation Northwoods”) to fake hijacking jetliners and carry out acts of terrorism on U.S. citizens and then blame it on Cuba to serve as the pretext for a war against Cuba. Recently declassified government documents show that the U.S. Government purposely faked the intelligence on the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” in order to provide the excuse to go to war in Vietnam. And, more recently, it is now public knowledge that the U.S. government deliberately fabricated Iraq's WMD threat to get trick the public into war with Iraq.

Governments throughout history, including the U.S. Government, have used this “problem-reaction-solution” tactic in order to provide the pretext for war or other political actions. Historical documents show that it was Hitler’s forces, not the Communists, who burned the Reichstag Government building. Many historians agree that it was actually the U.S., and not the Spanish, who blew up the U.S.S. Maine as the pretext for the Spanish American War. Historical records also conclusively show that the U.S. Government had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to occur to draw us into the war.

The 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is another clear-cut case of government-sponsored terror. The evidence proving government involvement and a cover-up is 100% conclusive. The BATF, which had offices in the Murrah building had prior knowledge of the bombing and did not show up to their offices the morning of the bombing. Oklahoma City local news channels reported that there were multiple explosive devices removed from inside the building. McVeigh’s truck bomb did not cause the damage to the Murrah building. It was a diversion to cover the fact that bombs were inside the building (evidence which would lead back to the true culprits), and McVeigh was the patsy.

Now, will some of you wait 40, 50, or 60 years for the government to declassify documents and finally admit that 9/11 was an inside job before you finally acknowledge it? You don’t have to. The evidence is already out there for us to make that determination.


THE REAL PERPETRATORS OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS

The 9/11 attacks were clearly carried out with the cooperation of people in high levels of the government. The ensuing coverup of the truth about the 9/11 attacks has required the cooperation of people both in the government and the mainstream media. Thus, we know that the real orchestrators of the 9/11 attacks are a group of people with control over both the government and the mainstream media.

The bottom line is this. The true orchestrators of the 9/11 attacks is a Zionist Cabal exercising enormous influence and control over our government and mainstream media. You think that this is just the rantings of some “lunatic” or “anti-Semite”? Hardly. Now, even scholars are admitting the Zionist control over our government. For example, read this article where scholars claim that a “pro-Israeli lobby” linked to the neo-conservatives in and around the Bush Administration has enormous power in Washington D.C.–including a “stranglehold on Congress” and being the mastermind behind U.S. foreign policy:

Zionist power over U.S. Government and Media confirmed by renowned American Scholars
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060320-124726-1902r

Then we have other publically available evidence, like the publications of the neo-conservative think tank “The Project For The New American Century” (PNAC). Zionists exerting influence on the Bush Administration want to take control of regions of the world (including specifically the Middle East and Central Asia region) in order (as they claim) to “promote Amerian global leadership.”

Even casual observers can see that it is the Zionists, neo-cons, and Israel who primarily pushed for the war in Iraq. And they are now pushing for war against Iran. They were pushing for these wars for a long time, but needed a necessary “crisis” in order to provide the pretext for such action. The PNAC document titled Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resrouces For a New Century (published in September 2000) acknowledged this when it stated that a “catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor” was needed:

Quote :

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor. --Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resrouces For a New Century, page 51 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"

(see top of page 51 of pdf document above...page 63 of 90 in display):

They got their "catastrophic and catalyzing event" just a year later on September 11th, 2001. Coincidence?

The ultimate goal of this Zionist cabal with enormous power over our government is world domination and control. That may sound far-fetched, but that is what they are accomplishing using the American military to obtain "global American leadership" (as PNAC publically admits to striving for) and American hegemony in the world. This Zionist cabal ultimately wants a “new world order” or global totalitarian government (under the United Nations or some other entity). They are the force behind the “terrorism”, and are using it to achieve their goals. The terrorist threat is an illusion, and “the war on terror” is a hoax.

Here is an excellent article exposing the Zionist role in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks:

Stranger Than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

5/7/2011 12:35:08 PM

^

http://skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4220721

5/7/2011 12:53:22 PM

Stop posting shit about how 9/11 was an inside job. That's not what this thread about. It's clear, though, that the government hastily assigned guilt to OBL in lieu of any hard evidence. Recent facts that have come to light make this discussion worth having. Dragging up a 10 year old salisbury post is not a substitute for a rational discussion today.

5/7/2011 1:13:35 PM

I love it when people say the word Zionist in long posts. It means I don't have to actually read them.

5/7/2011 1:17:57 PM

^^ it may have started one way, but it turned into people questioning the commission and implying a conspiracy regarding the pentagon hit because of the video. that's salisburyboy stuff that has already been discussed.

5/7/2011 1:51:28 PM

Quote :

"Recent facts that have come to light make this discussion worth having."

Do elaborate.

5/7/2011 1:51:30 PM

Quote :

"Stop posting shit about how 9/11 was an inside job. That's not what this thread about. It's clear, though, that the government hastily assigned guilt to OBL in lieu of any hard evidence. Recent facts that have come to light make this discussion worth having."

Here's the thing, though...at this point, those are the only two options: either Osama did it or the government did. I say this because the whole point of terrorism is to send a message. You can't send a message if you let someone else take the fall for your actions. If it wasn't OBL, someone would be screaming from the rooftops, "No, we did it! We did it!"

The only exception is if you're the government looking for an excuse to invade Afghanistan, which we seem to agree is stupid as shit.

5/7/2011 1:57:06 PM

Quote :

"^^ it may have started one way, but it turned into people questioning the commission and implying a conspiracy regarding the pentagon hit because of the video. that's salisburyboy stuff that has already been discussed."

But really, you were looking for a way to derail the thread.

Quote :

"Do elaborate."

With the death of Bin Laden, and the hazy facts surrounding the event itself, it made me start reading. Despite my best efforts to find convincing evidence that connects Bin Laden to 9/11, and checking out the timeline before and after 9/11, I have not been able to find any. There's a post I made on the last page about halfway down detailing some verified events that make it seem as though the Bush admin "knew" that 9/11 was done by OBL/Iraq(LOL!) before they actually knew anything.

That's the issue I'm honing in on here. We already know the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq. I'm not saying this was a government setup. I'm saying the Bush admin, as it was prone to do, made a hasty decision to support the goals they already had in place. It's fucking verified that Bush and his advisors wanted to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban before 9/11 happened.

Quote :

"Here's the thing, though...at this point, those are the only two options: either Osama did it or the government did. I say this because the whole point of terrorism is to send a message. You can't send a message if you let someone else take the fall for your actions. If it wasn't OBL, someone would be screaming from the rooftops, "No, we did it! We did it!""

Uh, why are those the only two options? Read what I just posted.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2011 2:33:42 PM

i didn't even consider posting until i saw someone start talking about the pentagon security footage implying some kind of consipracy

5/7/2011 2:36:18 PM

Quote :

"I love it when people say the word Zionist in long posts. It means I don't have to actually read them."

lololololol

5/7/2011 2:54:35 PM

Quote :

"Where have you read that they "refused" anything? "

They originally refused under FOIA Exemption 7, and later released it. They claim the Pentagon footage, and the hotel and gas station footage (which were both confiscated minutes after the attack), were the only relevant videos.

Quote :

"What makes you think they actually have more footage to be made public? Are you expecting the security cameras on the section of the building that got hit to be functional?"

The footage released was from the entrance building. I think it's very strange that the Pentagon, where our most most important and secret intelligence activities take place, would be using such terrible security cameras.

Quote :

"What point are you trying to make anyway? What about the plane crashing into the building do you think did not happen as described by the 9/11 report?"

The point I'm trying to make is that there has been a lot of reluctance by the government to discuss the attacks or release information related to the attacks. What could they possibly be trying to hide? If you're wondering: I believe that the WTC was definitely struck by a plane.. Plenty of video and photo evidence has been released by both the public and the media. It would be stupid and crazy to think that it didn't happen. The Pentagon is a different story.

Quote :

"i didn't even consider posting until i saw someone start talking about the pentagon security footage implying some kind of consipracy"

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. You're jumping to conclusions about me. I'm very interested any any information you have, either in support of the official story or not. If it's an old argument and has been refuted, I'd be very open to hearing why.

Quote :

"This is the only video evidence that has been released of the pentagon attack, and it took a lawsuit to procure it. Surely this is not the only footage the Pentagon has of its exterior? Apparently the Pentagon is using a single horribly shitty webcam for it's security footage. If it's legitimate, why did they refuse to release it in the first place?"

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 8:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2011 8:13:36 PM

Quote :

"There's a post I made on the last page about halfway down detailing some verified events that make it seem as though the Bush admin "knew" that 9/11 was done by OBL/Iraq(LOL!) before they actually knew anything."

As I sat in my dorm room on September 11, 2001, barely minutes after the plane hit the second WTC tower, my roommate turned to me and said, "This is definitely al Qaeda."

Pretty much anyone who new anything about Islamist terrorism knew the attacks had all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda strike. They also knew that al Qaeda had attacked US targets several times in recent years, and had promised to continue doing so on an even larger scale. In fact, they knew that al Qaeda members had been plotting to strike passenger jets since the mid-90s. That the Bush administration immediately suspected al Qaeda is not weird, at all. Nor is it weird that the Bush administration had developed a plan to gradually step up pressure on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. In fact, that plan was a relatively minor update to longstanding US foreign policy toward the situation. What would be weird would be for the Bush administration to develop this three-pronged plan of action only to cause (or allow, which ever flavor of Kool-Aid you've been drinking) an event to happen that would render it irrelevant.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2011 8:54:33 PM

I do not believe the government planned the attacks. I believe Al-Qaeda planned them, or at least carried them out, (but not necessarily Osama bin Laden). At this point in the discussion, I think it's possible that the administration knew about the attacks and let them happen to forward some agenda(s). I think its possible that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, and that they used the WTC attack to destroy documents regarding the $2.3 trillion the DoD lost. These are a couple of theories I have as to why the government would be so reluctant to working with investigators. I don't "believe" these things. I am open to the possibility.

Lazarus, despite the fact that you think I'm crazy, and I think you'll believe anything the government says, I'm interested in what you think about the questions I have.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 9:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2011 8:56:04 PM

I haven't seen you ask any questions. I've only seen you float a continuous list of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Be more specific, in other words. In the meantime, if you want a better understanding of the events leading up to 9/11, I would recommend Steve Coll's excellent Ghost Wars. It's a comprehensive, very readable, impeccably sourced (80+ pages of footnotes) account of, well, as the subtitle says, "...the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001."

http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076

5/7/2011 9:11:39 PM

Quote :

"I haven't seen you ask any questions"

Then you haven't read the thread. If you read the whole thing, and answer my questions, I'll be glad to converse with you. Until then, I can only think that you're making assumptions about my beliefs (which are more accurately a lack-there-of).

5/7/2011 9:14:39 PM

what about when bin laden took credit for it?

5/7/2011 9:18:33 PM

The videos could easily be fake.

As d357r0y3r posted early in the thread:

Quote :

"Honestly, this December 13th video seems fake. Writing with wrong hand? Wearing a metallic ring that would be prohibited by Islam? His beard is darker and he just looks slightly different. I'm not buying it, and this is the only place that he has actually confessed to 9-11."

Other than the claim that it's the only confession video, I agree. There is another, but if one is fake, it's not a stretch to the second was fake as well. It's extremely odd to me that the second video (October 29, 2004), was released only one week before the voting day preceding Bush's re-election.

Or maybe they're not fake and Osama was behind the attacks. This still wouldn't dismiss the questions of the secrecy surrounding the aftermath.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 9:35 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2011 9:30:21 PM

there is even more than two, according to wikipedia at least

5/7/2011 9:44:47 PM

Okay, but

Quote :

"if one is fake, it's not a stretch to the second was fake as well"

still applies.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2011 9:46:11 PM

so it wouldn't a stretch that some of the things with him denying it are a fake as well

5/7/2011 9:48:33 PM

They could be fake, but I'm not aware of any questions of the legitimacy of his denial. If you can give me any reasons why they might be fake, I'm all ears.

5/7/2011 9:52:25 PM

you're not aware of anyone questioning the legitimacy of the denial? if we werent questioning the legitimacy of it we couldn't have used it as a reason to go to war, clearly there are plenty of people questioning the legitimacy of it. At the time he was living in Afghanistan with a lot of support from the Taliban. The Taliban denied the attack, they probably didn't want the heat from it. Bin Laden's denial was that he didn't do it because it was against the law in Afghanistan, he denied it so he didn't piss them off. Later when it didn't serve his interest to lie, he didn't.

5/7/2011 10:14:07 PM

I thought you were questioning the legitimacy of the denial itself (whether or not he really did deny it).

You said you posted because of what I said about the Pentagon video (or lack-there-of). What do you think about it? Check out the rest of my posts about it on this page.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2011 10:17:36 PM

I'm going to regret doing this but...

Quote :

""There's a post I made on the last page about halfway down detailing some verified events that make it seem as though the Bush admin "knew" that 9/11 was done by OBL/Iraq(LOL!) before they actually knew anything." "

I seem to recall that there was a big todo over the fact that the Bush administration received an intelligence briefing not 2 months before the sept 11 attacks which suggested that al Qaeda operatives were plotting to hijack a plane and use it as a missile, or something similar to that effect. It seems reasonable to then assume that when someone hijacks a plane and uses it as a missile, that it might just be the same al Qaeda operatives you were briefed on months earlier.

5/7/2011 10:34:01 PM

^
My current thoughts:

Quote :

"I do not believe the government planned the attacks. I believe Al-Qaeda planned them, or at least carried them out, (but not necessarily Osama bin Laden). At this point in the discussion, I think it's possible that the administration knew about the attacks and let them happen to forward some agenda(s). I think its possible that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, and that they used the WTC attack to destroy documents regarding the $2.3 trillion the DoD lost. These are a couple of theories I have as to why the government would be so reluctant to working with investigators. I don't "believe" these things. I am open to the possibility."

5/7/2011 10:37:16 PM

so now the twin towers were a cover up for DoD money and a plane did not hit the pentagon? fucking looney.

that deserves salisburyboy levels of responding, which i will do here:


BIGGEST SMOKING GUNS PROVING THE OFFICIAL STORY ON 9/11 IS A LIE

1. The WTC towers and WTC Building 7 were brought down with explosives. All 3 towers fell at virtual free-fall speed in a symmetrical fashion as buildings do in a controlled demolition. Given that they fell at virtual free-fall speed, it is impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed due to any “pancake theory” as the government says. There are numerous eyewitness reports (including from many firefighters and emergency personnel) describing explosions going off just before the collapse of the towers. And WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein has admitted that WTC Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. Additionally, video footage of the collapses show demolition charges going off in all three towers.

2. Some of the alleged bin Laden video tapes are obvious fakes, using bin Laden look-alikes. Other video tapes showing the real bin Laden are mistranslated to deceive the public. Some of the audio tapes allegedly of bin Laden are really the voices of men impersonating bin Laden.

3. NORAD and the U.S. Air Defense did not respond according to standard procedure on 9/11, standing down for around an hour allowing the attacks to occur. For instance, Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon. According to the official story, NORAD knew Flight 77 was hijacked around 8:50am. Yet, it took around 50 minutes until 2 fighters were scrambled from Andrews, leaving just minutes before the Pentagon was struck at 9:40am.

4. The U.S. Government was planning to invade Afghanistan months before the 9/11 attacks. The invasion of Afghanistan was not in response to 9/11.

5. The U.S. Government had prior knowledge of the attacks. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and top Pentagon officials got warnings and cancelled flights in the days before 9/11. Many foreign governments warned the U.S. Government prior to 9/11 about an impending attack.

6. Many others had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Insider stock trading reveals high-level foreknowledge of the attacks. A record number of “put options” (speculation that a companies stock will fall) were placed on American Airlines in the days preceding 9/11. Odigo, and Israeli messaging company, gave its workers a warning of the 9/11 attacks. And even New York City schoolchildren had prior knowledge of the attack. Are we to then seriously believe that the CIA, NSA, and other American intelligence agencies had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

7. Several of the supposed “hijackers” were later found to be alive after 9/11. The men’s identities were stolen, and the real perpetrators of the attacks used them as patsies.

8. Bin Laden is a known CIA asset, and the U.S. government actually refused to take him into custody on several occasions prior to 9/11. For instance, the Clinton Administration refused offers by the Sudanese government to arrest and turn over bin Laden in the late 1990s. They needed this him around as a patsy and boogeyman for the future.

9. The U.S. Government actually protected and aided the supposed “terrorists.” High-level government officials hindered FBI and other investigations into suspected “Al-Qaeda” terrorists inside the United States prior to 9/11. And some of the supposed “hijackers” actually trained on U.S. military bases. In the months before 9/11, George Bush actually signed a document (FBI document 199I WF213589) blocking anti-terrorism investigations related to the bin Ladens.

10. On the morning of September 11th, the government was conducting drills of hijacked planes crashing into government buildings (including the Pentagon). Was this just a bizarre coincidence? Hardly. These drills were integral to the success of the 9/11 attacks. They provided operational cover. That way, while the actual attacks were occurring, the people in NORAD and with the U.S. Air Defense would have their guard down and would think that what was happening was “just a drill.”

5/8/2011 12:48:40 AM

^

Quote :

" in a symmetrical fashion as buildings do in a controlled demolition"

I realize you’re most likely trolling there, but the fall was very asymmetrical if it was a “controlled demolition” and there was WAAAYYY too much debris blow away from the site to be a controlled demolition, and there is no way someone strung det-cord around the building prior to the explosion without anyone noticing. There’s no way someone planted explosives around the building without anyone noticing.

It’s patently absurd to say 9/11 used controlled explosives and was not the effects of a big ass airplane colliding with a building.

5/8/2011 1:40:51 AM

^^
No. I don't think the WTC towers were a cover-up. I think the Pentagon could have piggy-backed off of the WTC attacks in order to destroy documents relevant to the $2.3 trillion they "lost".

If you think this is a crazy theory, you're extremely ignorant of the past.

5/8/2011 9:05:06 AM

So, in order to cover up the fact that their aging accounting systems were unable to properly track a large amount of transactions - a fact that was disclosed months before 9/11 - the Bush administration decided to make a speech about it the day before it hatched a plan to blow up the Pentagon in order to kill some accountants in precise coincidence with an al Qaeda plot to fly planes into the WTC towers. Furthermore, they did so by faking a plane crash at one of the largest buildings in one of the most densely populated areas of the country (Northern Virginia around rush hour). Apparently, this would - what? Cause the press, in the age of the Internet, where every public statement is permanently archived and accessible - to forget about it forever? Stop being a cretin.

5/8/2011 9:32:11 AM

CONCLUSIVE PROOF THE U.S. WAS PLANNING TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN PRIOR TO 9/11

A battle plan for Afghanistan was being reviewed by the US Command 4 MONTHS before the 9/11 attacks:

Sydney Morning Herald: "Defence redefined means securing cheap energy"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/25/1040511092926.html

Quote :

""As far back as 1975, Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, said America was prepared to wage war over oil. Separate plans advocating US conquest of Saudi oilfields were published in the '70s. So it should come as little surprise that in May last year - four months before the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York - a battle plan for Afghanistan was already being reviewed by the US Command that would carry it out after September 11. Military strategists were highlighting the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America's "security"."

More confirmation:

BBC-"US 'planned attack on Taleban'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Quote :

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks."

Prisonplanet's "Pre-Sept. 11 plan to invade Afghanistan" Archive:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#preplan

5/8/2011 10:25:04 AM

^
You still haven't answered my questions about the Pentagon tapes.

Also I'd love it if you would read this and tell me what you think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

5/8/2011 10:30:19 AM

Quote :

"either Osama did it or the government did. I say this because the whole point of terrorism is to send a message. You can't send a message if you let someone else take the fall for your actions."

Interesting point. Even more interesting that OBL apparently denied his involvement initially. Isn't his denial a refutation of your proposed rubric?

I will say the sudden killing and disposal of OBL certainly has made me question the events more. I feel it is likely that there is more to the story of OBL/9-11 (at the very least videotapes possibly indicate some impersonation and false statements). Do I think it is as nefarious as adultswim? Probably not. I think it is more likely OBL was used as figurehead to provide an end point goal and maintain support.

5/8/2011 10:46:58 AM

Quote :

"ere's the thing, though...at this point, those are the only two options: either Osama did it or the government did."

3) The government was aware it was going to happen and manipulated it to their advantage.

4) The government wasn't aware it was going to happen and afterwards manipulated it to their advantage.

[Edited on May 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

5/8/2011 10:54:10 AM