9/11 - Al Qaeda or the U.S.?

[King TonGoll]

And this war is..... the Afghan war?

Also I'd like to point out that wars start over land, commodities, and religion. Thats how they start. From what you've said, this war seems to have benefited gas companies. Did gas companies hit the towers? I don't think so. Also I'd like to ask who exactly owned the Twin Towers?

actually most modern day wars start over money reguardless of what they tell you.

iraq could verry well be the next base for attacks on other oil bearing countrys. look at its position, and state.

anyone here watch zeitgeist? its a long docu, starts out with religion, if you just don't want to hear it skip it and go to the other parts.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

REALLY worth the watch.

 

[New_U.S.]

[YOUTUBE]k1oPEfa9Lws[/YOUTUBE]
better documentary

I have to ask what Iraq has to do with the 9/11 attacks.

 

[DDRtists]

Not really with the current topic of this debate, but this site is pretty cool/odd/weird with this 9/11 Conspiracy stuff:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

Another thing I don't understand is how ALL the buildings went down with just the planes that hit them. There had to have been some extra help, because what about all the other buildings? They were made to withstand the fire, and we've never had a skyscraper ever fall due to fires. Why did 2 happen on the same day?

There is too much thats wrong with this, it's hard to think it WASN'T Planned.

 

[Halo_king116]

I have two points two make in this thread.

1) I would think that saying "The American Government did it" is the wrong way to put it. Also saying "The American Government didn't do it", in my opinion, is the wrong way to put it.

In this situation, I find it hard to believe any "government" is responsible. There was no meeting in a large room where representatives from around the country sat, each having their own microphone and discussing whether or not to be behind 9/11 or not. Thats just a silly way to look at it. Instead, say that politicians are either behind it or not. I mean, it's not the government, it's some people in the government that either did or did not do this.

So please, try not to say "government".


2) Earlier on someone stated that:

"No, I haven't personally talked to them, but its something different entirely to "act" like Osama bin Laden. Acting is one thing, but assuming the face, language, and voice of the spokesman for an enemy organization is something different."

I must disagree with you, 100%. Sure, this is no simple "act" put on. But heck, we are talking about some of the most powerful people in the world here. To say that they are unable to do such a thing is a terrible point which I think to be incorrect.

I would imagine here are many people who share physical similarities to Osama Bin Ladden, not to mention that we are able to physically modify ones personal appearance. Not only that, but in the "Loose Change" comparison, they didn't look too much alike, IMO.

Also, how can you say "assuming the language" at all? There is no argument there, sadly due to the fact of how many people speak that language.

And voice is simple enough. Not only are we able to modify speech with technology nowadays, voice is one part of acting. People are able to alter their voice, some excel at it and are very good "voice actors" (No I am not saying it was a voice actor, I'm just saying theres bound to be someone who can sound like Osama, not to mention as I said above voice-altering technology).

These are people in power we are talking about (Assuming for the sake of my point they are in fact the ones behind it), these are just simple bumps to get over.


Anyways, I didn't mean to "attack" the acting thing. I just meant that for reasons I stated above, that I find it very easy to fake a video like that if you had the kind of power that the people the videos are accusing have.

My main point is my first one. "Government" is not the correct word, and using it would only make most statements false (To the extend of my knowledge).


And yes, I find it easier to believe it was an inside job than an outside job. Saying why would only repeat previously said facts and things from various sources, some of which posted already in this thread.


Have a nice day!

 

[SFilip]

> wars start over land, commodities, and religion
You're very wrong.
Not a single (serious) war start for any of those reasons.
You must understand the difference between these two elements every war has:
-actual reason(s) for starting a war
-excuse for starting a war
There are only two things that may fall into the "actual reason" category: money and power (land, oil and similar are ultimately used to produce the two I just stated).

Excuses are many.
Did World War I really start because of Franz Ferdinand's assassination in Sarajevo? Of course not. It started because certain countries wanted to get (more) money and (more) power, namely the ones known as the Great Powers - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France, Russia and Britain.

"Yeah, yeah, that SFilip guy is writing nonsense again to look smart."
Not quite. Think about it and see if you can figure out the excuse for the Afghan war and war in Iraq and the actual cause.

 

[TheDamien]

If a war is over money or power, then it usually is for land and commodities. Sometimes it seems to me that a war is more about exercising power than attaining it.

 

[Aqua Dragon]

What ABout The U.S. Civil War? FAr as I Can tell, that was HARDLY about money (although money had a little to do with it)

Anyways, I'm wondering something... If the U.S. traitors really were trying to get something out of hitting down the towers, why did they head for the pentagon with a different plane and the White House (I think, I can never remember which one that plane that the terrosists couldn't get was heading for) as well?

 

[Halo_king116]

Anyways, I'm wondering something... If the U.S. traitors really were trying to get something out of hitting down the towers, why did they head for the pentagon with a different plane and the White House (I think, I can never remember which one that plane that the terrosists couldn't get was heading for) as well?

Perhaps so people can ask that question? It makes sense that it would make it look more like a terrorist attack - Although I am not informed in this particular part of the arguement.

But who knows, maybe I am right?

What ABout The U.S. Civil War? FAr as I Can tell, that was HARDLY about money (although money had a little to do with it)

I would imagine SFilip is talking about the more modern wars. I couldn't see the American Revoloution over money, either - It was to become a free country (Correct me if I am wrong).

I have to ask what Iraq has to do with the 9/11 attacks.

A quick note before I go on this is that it gave the US every right to invade Iraq. Had the Twin Towers not been bombed, support would have been not nearly as strong, and theres a good chance people would have said there is no just cause - It was 9/11 that made people decide to do something against "terrorism".

And now that they have just cause to fight a war in Iraq, some can (As others have said), benefit from it.

 

[Aqua Dragon]

Perhaps so people can ask that question? It makes sense that it would make it look more like a terrorist attack - Although I am not informed in this particular part of the arguement.

But who knows, maybe I am right?

I'm pretty sure that the twin towers would have been MORE then enough to make it look like a terrorist attack. Destroying the White House and PEntagon would actually cost the government itself money, because both of those are government owned properties (correct me if i'm wrong). There would have been no reason whatsoever to destroy it except to lead people off, but they would have lost more then gained, not only money but several government representatives as well.

I would imagine SFilip is talking about the more modern wars. I couldn't see the American Revoloution over money, either - It was to become a free country (Correct me if I am wrong).

It Was ABout Both. money had quite a part in it, but it's hardly the ONLY reason for the war.

 

[sqrage]

I'm pretty sure that the twin towers would have been MORE then enough to make it look like a terrorist attack. Destroying the White House and PEntagon would actually cost the government itself money, because both of those are government owned properties (correct me if i'm wrong). There would have been no reason whatsoever to destroy it except to lead people off, but they would have lost more then gained, not only money but several government representatives as well.

The White House never got hit and the Pentagon got chipped.

 

[Miz]

There are only two things that may fall into the "actual reason" category: money and power (land, oil and similar are ultimately used to produce the two I just stated).

Money, Power, Needs (Needs are, Food, water, oil, farming land, etc.) Security and the other things people have said... are all very reasons why war is started

Destroying the White House and PEntagon would actually cost the government itself money, because both of those are government owned properties (correct me if i'm wrong). There would have been no reason whatsoever to destroy it except to lead people off, but they would have lost more then gained, not only money but several government representatives as well.

Yes but there attack would be pointless because if they tried to attack one of those directly the security would have been more crises level... and Yes one of the planes was heading for Washiton D.C.
If it were to crash into the white house or the capital building they may just Intercept the plane or destroy it

 

[Aqua Dragon]

Yes but there attack would be pointless because if they tried to attack one of those directly the security would have been more crises level... and Yes one of the planes was heading for Washiton D.C.
If it were to crash into the white house or the capital building they may just Intercept the plane or destroy it

The White House never got hit and the Pentagon got chipped.

Yes, the White House Never got hit because people stopped the plane. But that was definitely its goal (what else would it be aiming to hit). and the PEntagon got hit at all (people inside of it were still killed)

But what exactly was the U.S. supposed to gain from that? Why would they tell the other 2 planes to hit 2 government owned buildings when there would be no gain that time? It may make sense to hit the towers, but definitely no sense to attempt to hit the White House or even hit the Pentagon in the first place! All 4 planes were being hijacked, most likely by the same organization. So if the U.S. Is behind it, why would they do that?

 

[esb]

Why not? What did they lose? Just a few people (probably what it looks like to them).

What do they gain? Iraq, and more parts of the Middle East. Also patriotism.

 

[Aqua Dragon]

Why not? What did they lose? Just a few people (probably what it looks like to them).

What do they gain? Iraq, and more parts of the Middle East. Also patriotism.

Wouldn't simply hiting the twin towers be far more then enough for those reasons? Why did they make 2 more planes hit 2 other buildings when hitting the 2 twin towers was plenty?

 

[Halo_king116]

>>But what exactly was the U.S. supposed to gain from that?
>>So if the U.S. Is behind it, why would they do that?

You're saying it as if it's the government. Read my post above - I would imagine these are personal interests, not the interests of the American Government as a whole. Those people did not lose anything when those buildings got hit, infarct they gained if you look at the evidence. Sure AMERICA took a hit, but those people didn't.


And look at all the other evidence... A few that get me are:

1) That evidence shows that the buildings fell as if it were a planned demolition, and that the fire shouldn't have been able to make the entire structures collapse.

2) The fact that where the plane hit the Pentagon, there are very few pieces of debris from the plane. The government says that it was incinerated in the fire - But if you watch those videos and look at the facts, it is scientifically impossible.

3) The FBI confiscated all security footage from nearby locations to the Pentagon, all of which would have had clear shots of the Pentagon when it was hit. The FBI refuses to release these tapes, even though they would clear all conspiracy theories if they actually showed a plane hitting the building. (Read next point)

4) The point of impact on the pentagon is only 16 foot (or was it meters? Whatever) hole in the wall, and no signs of where the wings or engines would of hit. The engines way TONNES, and they would have left some some significant damage (Also if you watch the videos you'll see more on this point).


There are so many points against the whole story the government gave the American public. Just watch some of the videos, and look up some of the information provided on the sites. It's almost impossible to not believe what they are saying. I would point out more, but I'll leave that to you.

Have a good one.

 

[King TonGoll]

and easy answr to that, you see the attack on the later, all the attacks is due to a bill.

they need a certain amount of dammage done to the U.S befor that can engage in a warfare like we have now. i fergot the name of the bill, but its was passed after the death count that was needed got done... I'll look it up some other time. lol

 

[SFilip]

> are all very reasons why war is started
Security is just an excuse.
"Needs" are usually just a better way of saying "money". I can't imagine a war fought for food.

> I couldn't see the American Revoloution over money
If not money - then power.
The North wanted more power by uniting the US into one country.
On the other hand, if South became independent, its leaders would have became very powerful, having their own country and all.

As for the towers collapsing...my own speculation is that either US government (or whoever is responsible, not necessarily the government) had it planned, put some explosives before the crash and detonated at some point afterwards or, if the terrorists were indeed behind the attack, quickly assembled a team and planted the explosives after the planes hit.
The first makes more sense though.

 

[TehHelper]

Hi, first post I've guess

some points I'd like to point out

 wars start over land, commodities, and religion
You're very wrong.
Not a single (serious) war start for any of those reasons.
You must understand the difference between these two elements every war has:
-actual reason(s) for starting a war
-excuse for starting a war
There are only two things that may fall into the "actual reason" category: money and power (land, oil and similar are ultimately used to produce the two I just stated).

Excuses are many.
Did World War I really start because of Franz Ferdinand's assassination in Sarajevo? Of course not. It started because certain countries wanted to get (more) money and (more) power, namely the ones known as the Great Powers - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France, Russia and Britain.

"Yeah, yeah, that SFilip guy is writing nonsense again to look smart."
Not quite. Think about it and see if you can figure out the excuse for the Afghan war and war in Iraq and the actual cause.

First off, I love how safe you are being. Any war can be classified as if for money or power. Thats an extremely easy route to say. Why? Because it does not take much imagination to place it at that. If you were to truely to place it down to land, recources, or religion, you may find it better to understand why things occur. All wars have a winner, and a loser. Conquering your enemy means you are now on top of them. Gain of power. All you did was not look closely at the situation - please don't say you are right and others are wrong because you smashed all causes into a tiny block.

Why not? What did they lose? Just a few people (probably what it looks like to them).

What do they gain? Iraq, and more parts of the Middle East. Also patriotism.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The U.S. could have invaded Iraq on the same pretext they had before without 9/11. They just wouldn't have had the al Queda trumpcard. You are looking at the past and pointing fingers. What are you going to say next. It was Charle Wilson's fault for the Taliban being formed. Please, if the government had this great of planning, then we would never have entered Iraq because we would have seen the deathtrap that it was.

Although three planes hit their targets, one plane did not. It is usually sadly overlooked that a fourth flight was sent to hit somewhere in Washington DC. This plane however was crashed by the passengers. Discovery runs a documentary called 'The Flight that Fought Back'. In this documentary, they go through what happened. From the audio from the flight, you can tell the plane had been hijacked by terrorists. Suicide missions such as this are nothing new. First witnessed by the U.S. in WWII against the Japanesse, the suicide bomber became a effective weapon. More recently this tactic has been highly used by Hezbollah, and then adopted by al Queda. Since Hezbollah is not 'at war' with the U.S., and al Queda is, you can assume that al Queda would be the terrorist group backing this (this is also backed by al Queda taking credit for the attack after the attacks). Westerners do not understand suicide bombings. You are assuming the CIA did this. No person from the U.S. could pull this off psycologically. Concience cannot be ignored. Radical islamic sects could do this because they are fighting 'for God'.

Looking at the fact that the plane was hijacked and would be used as a suicide bomb, and that the likely group to do this would be al Queda, logically you can assume that that plane was hijacked by al Queda operatives to attack some place in Washington. If this is true, then the other planes would be hijacked by al Queda logically.

Now that we have looked at who would logically do this, we must look why to attack.

al Quedas motives are easy to guess. Strike fear into Americans. Do damage on American soil. Kill Americans. Make a statement. Theres a long list of motives for al Queda. However the U.S. governments reasons for doing this are shorter.

This attack would let the U.S. invade Afghanistan, the base of al Queda. This is what the U.S. did. I fail to see the great use of fighting a usless country that had been previously armed by the U.S. If the U.S. felt that al Queda was enough of a threat to take out the Taliban, and they needed a pretext to invade, there are many better options that don't need 3000+ sacrificed American lives. A media flame campaign against them would have worked equally.

The only other motive for the U.S. government being behind this is so they can have better control of the homeland. This better control leads to randomly changing 'terror levels' and bullshit laws like the Patriot Act being passed. These sure got Bush far.

My final question against this is from one of the movies previously posted. It was said that a U.S. hospital was hosting Osama bin Landin just before 9/11. I must say if the U.S. was behind this and they would have known they are going to war against al Queda, why wouldn't they capture him there and a few months later say that they captured him? Makes absolutely no sense.

After all of this you must keep in mind who would do this and motive. These are greater then any tapes. Looking what happened from what happened and using a bit of logic instead of looking at frame by frame and think you see something, you can logically prove that this attack was done by al Queda, not the United States government.

This post does a pretty good job showing that it was logically a terrorist that pulled off these attacks. If some politician decided that they wanted to do this. They would need to plan with al Queda. Now, al Queda trys to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. What better way to make Americans afraid then to show that their government is working against them. However they did it themselves and nothing was ever said. The government didnt do this, extremest did. The world doesn't work randomly. For someone in the government to do this, you must answer BOTH of these questions LOGICALLY. HOW would some one in the government do this. And WHY would someone in the government do this. You need both legs for it to stand.

I welcome myself in-- TehHelper

 

[King TonGoll]

apperently you skipped my post, they needed to pass a bill, the terror attacks killed enough to engage on a anti terror movement, and then we where able to invade iraq.

 

[sqrage]

TehHelper, let's not forget about the good old Patriot Act.