slim, i'll tell why i think this particular conspiracy is silly, imho of course.
its a story, probably makes sense put together, as most do when presented by only one side.
But, as i've said this theory raises a lot more questions, that really don't fit well in it.
I dont like to repeat myself, and i've already some of it,
but i shall add, that with the amount of ppl that would be needed to pull this off would be so great, that this would be publicly known for so long now, and with so much testimony, just think about it: airport mechanicals would be involved, WTC security would be involved (prolly even some that would die on purpose), airport security would be involved, ppl at the Pentagon also would be willing to die for this im sure. And all for what? For something you guys can't even imagine what would be? Cmon... To shoot themselves in the feet? Makes no sense.
And if this is to cover-up the fact that terrorists planted bombs everywhere, really whats the point also? isnt it the same thing? Planes, bombs, who cares, really?
And if the terrorists really did plant the bombs why would they care to hit the WTC with planes?
also, i doubt terrorists would make it so the WTC would implode, when it would be a lot better for them to explode the building, no?
Im not trying to dispute a story that makes sense, i said before, Da Vinci Code also makes sense, thats not the point...
Im just trying to figure out why would something like this be done, and you guys dont even try to question that, but thats really what matters here. without a reason, the conspiracy theory falls right here, it doesnt answer anything, it only introduces more doubts, how can i accept that so easily? how can some accept that so easily, specially when they think that one side manipulates the media, and what do you think this is, no manipulation? because they are saying what some want to hear?
Doesnt it make much more sense, that the Al Qaeda, which actually assumed the attacks, would attack the USA?
The London and Madrid attacks were also fakes?
911 In Plane Site
Moderators: Jay2k1, DavidM, The_One
The idea of government sponsored terrorism against its own people is not a new concept. In the 1960's, the US government, in a project called 'Operation Northwoods', wanted to blow up american commercial planes and blame it on Cuba. This of course would serve as a pretext to war. sound familiar. 9/11 created not only inimaginable profit for some individuals, it also created a strong pretext for an aggressive foreign policy in afghanistan, iraq (and involvment in the 'revolutions' in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan). The Project for a New American Century called for an attack on the scale of, or bigger, than pearl harbour to usher in new imerialist and fascist american foreign and domestic policies. Profit, control of the american people keeping them in constant fear, and geopolitical control are the orders of the day.
unfortunately, we will never know the truth as to what happened on that day. what we do know is that the government controlled media in the US is promoting their own agenda by an intense propaganda campaign (look at the US media now with its propaganda against Iran), and cannot be trusted.
Having said this, the idea that someone or some group planned something along the lines of 'operation northwoods', having planted explosives in the WTC before 9/11, having operatives working at security screening in the airport is not less credible than the 'official' story that we have been force fed. Why, when golfer Payne Stewarts plane went off course in 1999, fighter jets intercepted within minutes, whereas on 9/11, AFTER 4 planes have been reported hijacked, there were NO interceptions by fighter planes?
There are too many things that do not add up in the 'official' story, which leads me to think that we are not being told anything near the truth. unfortunately, the public will stay in the dark, seeking the truth while american corporations reap profit.
And al qaeda/ bin laden have never admitted to the attack. Bin laden even denied... The apparent 'confession' tape is riddled with mistakes in translation, and significant doubts if it is indeed bin laden in the video. bin laden is a critical asset to the US, look at bush's increase in the polls after the 'bin laden' tape was released just before the elections...
taken from CNN Sept 17, 2001:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.
unfortunately, we will never know the truth as to what happened on that day. what we do know is that the government controlled media in the US is promoting their own agenda by an intense propaganda campaign (look at the US media now with its propaganda against Iran), and cannot be trusted.
Having said this, the idea that someone or some group planned something along the lines of 'operation northwoods', having planted explosives in the WTC before 9/11, having operatives working at security screening in the airport is not less credible than the 'official' story that we have been force fed. Why, when golfer Payne Stewarts plane went off course in 1999, fighter jets intercepted within minutes, whereas on 9/11, AFTER 4 planes have been reported hijacked, there were NO interceptions by fighter planes?
There are too many things that do not add up in the 'official' story, which leads me to think that we are not being told anything near the truth. unfortunately, the public will stay in the dark, seeking the truth while american corporations reap profit.
And al qaeda/ bin laden have never admitted to the attack. Bin laden even denied... The apparent 'confession' tape is riddled with mistakes in translation, and significant doubts if it is indeed bin laden in the video. bin laden is a critical asset to the US, look at bush's increase in the polls after the 'bin laden' tape was released just before the elections...
taken from CNN Sept 17, 2001:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.
Last edited by subgenius on 23-06-2006 15:18, edited 1 time in total.
germany was attacking itself too (by poland) to have a reason to attack them.
but ceno, nobody is saying the usa did it.
but they are obviously lying about a lot and trying to hide a lot....and this raises the question.... WHY?
you can't deny that a lot of things in the official story make absolutely no sense.
but ceno, nobody is saying the usa did it.
but they are obviously lying about a lot and trying to hide a lot....and this raises the question.... WHY?
you can't deny that a lot of things in the official story make absolutely no sense.
Bin Laden initially denied responsability, but lately admited he was involved in the attacks...
The idea of attacking themselves to support their future actions in the eastern world could be correct, but has some flaws too. First of all, there was no need to destroy part of the Pentagon with a missile, the point would be pretty much proven just by the WTC attacks. Actually, the point would be pretty much proven also by the planes crashing into WTC. In regards to Iraq, there was already the intention to invade Iraq right when Bush assumed power tbh, and knowing that they couldnt care less about UN's opinion in this, its pretty obvious that they were not that concerned in justifying the war.
David, why? They are probably trying to hide their security flaws and protecting the people that failed amongst government and intelligence. I already said it. Of course, this is not a undeniable truth, but it's a logical opinion, and i've seen that before so many times. politicians being judged for their actions is something rare, unfortunately... We've got so many scandals here in Portugal with a similar ending.
The idea of attacking themselves to support their future actions in the eastern world could be correct, but has some flaws too. First of all, there was no need to destroy part of the Pentagon with a missile, the point would be pretty much proven just by the WTC attacks. Actually, the point would be pretty much proven also by the planes crashing into WTC. In regards to Iraq, there was already the intention to invade Iraq right when Bush assumed power tbh, and knowing that they couldnt care less about UN's opinion in this, its pretty obvious that they were not that concerned in justifying the war.
David, why? They are probably trying to hide their security flaws and protecting the people that failed amongst government and intelligence. I already said it. Of course, this is not a undeniable truth, but it's a logical opinion, and i've seen that before so many times. politicians being judged for their actions is something rare, unfortunately... We've got so many scandals here in Portugal with a similar ending.
I've seen a lot of this before, and the only thing I can conclude is that you just can't really know ;p
It's funny to see everyone calling others naive for believing things, etc.
Another spare argument (if that one doesn't apply) is to say "you haven't even watched it."
Hi2u DavidM
Ceno didn't watch the documentary, but he clearly stated that he knew theories like this one from the internet.
Anyway, the question - to me - isn't
"Who did it?"
The question would be:
"How much does this question matter still?"
Sure..it would be a big shock to see major governments start wars for money, sacrificing thousands of lives, millions of dollars and blaming others.
But it's not like big empires haven't gone corrupt and died decadent and empty before, right?
Looking at some facts, this war hasn't been too bad for George Bush - possibly a worse president than Warren G. Harding imo, but that's besides the point I guess? - and some of his friends, that have shares in some important arms-producing companies. The same company, as I'm sure many of us have heard through "Fahrenheit 9/11" or some other source, that the Bin Laden family has got shares in.
Regardless of who to blame..it's how this all somehow evolved into a war that just strikes me as incredibly odd.
An act of terrorism was immediately - and for no apparent reason - called 'an act of war'...Ok, sure, I thought; they're emotional about it..and he wants to calm his citizens. Though I'm not sure if getting them to thirst for blood is a good way of calming citizens..it certainly gave them a message to hang on to.
Now they could finally find an enemy and make it all right again!
Then out of the blue came Osama, who - as I heard then - said that he 'did not do it, but is content about what happened to the US' (paraphrase) yes.
I'm sure someone else can remember his or her national news reporter saying this?
Still the most surprising thing is how the enemy suddenly changed completely.
After a few months of war, the new message was quite surprising to me:
"Let's go to Iraq!"
Anyway, all I'm saying is: There are a lot of things just fishy about this war. The Bush administration is a mess..and I'm quite sure we can all laugh about this in about 20 years.
It doesn't really matter what the cause of the 9/11-attacks was The US-government certainly didn't care. Even if it was the Al Qaeda..they sort of stopped caring about that 3 months later 
It's funny to see everyone calling others naive for believing things, etc.
Another spare argument (if that one doesn't apply) is to say "you haven't even watched it."
Hi2u DavidM
Ceno didn't watch the documentary, but he clearly stated that he knew theories like this one from the internet.Anyway, the question - to me - isn't
"Who did it?"
The question would be:
"How much does this question matter still?"
Sure..it would be a big shock to see major governments start wars for money, sacrificing thousands of lives, millions of dollars and blaming others.
But it's not like big empires haven't gone corrupt and died decadent and empty before, right?
Looking at some facts, this war hasn't been too bad for George Bush - possibly a worse president than Warren G. Harding imo, but that's besides the point I guess? - and some of his friends, that have shares in some important arms-producing companies. The same company, as I'm sure many of us have heard through "Fahrenheit 9/11" or some other source, that the Bin Laden family has got shares in.
Regardless of who to blame..it's how this all somehow evolved into a war that just strikes me as incredibly odd.
An act of terrorism was immediately - and for no apparent reason - called 'an act of war'...Ok, sure, I thought; they're emotional about it..and he wants to calm his citizens. Though I'm not sure if getting them to thirst for blood is a good way of calming citizens..it certainly gave them a message to hang on to.
Now they could finally find an enemy and make it all right again!
Then out of the blue came Osama, who - as I heard then - said that he 'did not do it, but is content about what happened to the US' (paraphrase) yes.
I'm sure someone else can remember his or her national news reporter saying this?
Still the most surprising thing is how the enemy suddenly changed completely.
After a few months of war, the new message was quite surprising to me:
"Let's go to Iraq!"
Anyway, all I'm saying is: There are a lot of things just fishy about this war. The Bush administration is a mess..and I'm quite sure we can all laugh about this in about 20 years.
It doesn't really matter what the cause of the 9/11-attacks was
The US-government certainly didn't care. Even if it was the Al Qaeda..they sort of stopped caring about that 3 months later 
It's the things I'd rather cry about that made me say that
Of course it's fun to laugh about the stupid things he's said, but that doesn't have much influence on anything other than public opinion (not enough influence on that either it seems).
Unfortunately a lot of other stuff the Bush administration has decided upon (and acted out) have had a lot of negative influence
That kind of overrules the whole laughing-part for me atm.
Of course it's fun to laugh about the stupid things he's said, but that doesn't have much influence on anything other than public opinion (not enough influence on that either it seems).
Unfortunately a lot of other stuff the Bush administration has decided upon (and acted out) have had a lot of negative influence
That kind of overrules the whole laughing-part for me atm.
Harding was an idiot..but Bush..