Did the U.S. government have a hand in the 9/11 attacks?

Never chalk up to conspiracy what you can explain with incompetence.

 

idk if they were responsible but they used the fear that those attacks caused against the citizens of our country and against the constitution that has been set up to protect us, the patriot act would NEVER of been passed without those attacks and those acts were an attack on freedom itself.

 

Wish I had been living on Mars! Sadly I've been here on Earth. But I had NOT seen that...I got kinda fed up with everything regarding 9/11 and just stopped taking anything in. But it's been a slow day/week, so I watched that over the past few days and I gotta say there was some really interesting info in there. Makes me think a little more about our (possible) involvment.
I had heard a lot of the info regarding the Pentagon attack, but some of it was new. Pretty compelling.
I hadn't heard much about the Towers, Pennsylvania/Cleveland, or the "in-flight" phone calls. The fact that the 3 WTC buildings are the only steel buildings to have collapsed due to fire is very interesting - especially when compared to other steel structures that burned for much longer periods of time. Oh, and the video of "Osama" writing with his right hand even though he's known to be left-handed.
I may be swinging towards the "we were involved" camp...but then again, I LOVE a good conspiracy! Especially when there's research and evidence to support the theory. It is a shame that conspiracy theorists autamatically get labled as "nut jobs".

 

Lash,

thanks for posting the link to Loose Change 2nd Edition. I had seen the first version before and this one is much better. Yes, lots of questions to be answered.....

But...

I don't think I would go as far as to say that 911 was some huge conspiracy to make money for a Manhattan landlord and give Bush and excuse to invade Iraq. Too many people would have to be involved and when more than just a few are involved, the truth usually comes out.

 

I've read a lot about 9/11 inconsistencies and the only things I can consider unanswered questions pertain to the crashes in Pennsylvania and Washington. It wouldn't surprise me if details regarding these were obfuscated by the government to conceal the fact that they were shot down by fighters, SAM systems, or even more exotic methods like SDI.

There are a lot of holes and inaccuracies in Loose Change. This is a good place to start reading about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Chan ... #Criticism

Personally, I wasn't too impressed by it. The presentation really detracted from the meat of the content, mainly the repetitious rap music and the tendency of the narrator to editorialize instead of just presenting facts. And really, voice changers?

 

So can anyone read Italian? Supposedly a well respected, ex-Italian president stated that the CIA was involved with the attacks and that this is common knowledge among European intelligence agencies. Apparently he confessed to being part of an agency responsible for running similar, smaller scale attacks across Europe decades ago and that it's a fairly common tactic used by governments. I would like to be able to read about this from a reputable source in English.

http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_nove ... c53b.shtml

 

Some 9/11 conspiracy supporters confronted Opie and Anthony on the streets last week, it was entertaining:

http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanthony ... /id/16704/
http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanthony ... /id/16703/
http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanthony ... /id/16702/

 

The real question is:

Is the govenment reports about the attacks accurate and honest?

The official report states tha the jet fuel weakened the steel, but at ground zero huge ammounts of melted steel were found- jet fuel cannot burn strong enough to melt steel.

The official report also does not discuss WTC7. The NIST report blames fire for the collapse of WTC7 but fire again cannot cause a building to collapse- no steel frames building has ever in history collapsed because of fire.

Also although mentioned in the report and widely documented, the melted steel at ground zero was denied to even exist by the chief autor of the NIST report.

Finally for the towers to fall at free fall speed, there must be no resistance beneth the falling part of the building- but obviously their was 80+ floors under where the collapse started. So in order for it to fall through the building underneath all the support structures in that building must have has to fail similtaniously- does that sound natural to you? could fire do that? To get all the supports to fail at the same time you must have had to use explosives.

So the official reports is not accurate, so what are they trying to hide?

Then you have to wonder if the govenment were involved and to what level?

LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose)?

MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose)?

There is no way terrorists could have put those explosives in all 3 of those buildings- so it must have been an 'Inside Job'

 

If I accept your analysis, the real question would then be....why? What possible reason would a government have for inflicting that it's own people. I have yet to hear anyone with a rational answer for that (and if you're going to spit out "he needed a reason to declare war on Muslims" don't bother...as much as I may dislike this administration, I cannot buy that they would go to those ends).

 

Hillsy -
Apparently the ex-Italian president in the article I linked to confessed to being involved with attacks on his and other European countries for a similar reason - basically to get the public support they needed for government programs that would otherwise not be supported by the public.
The "Why?" could be many things, but the most basic would be money. Many people have seen huge profits due to the attacks.
Again, I'm hoping for some analysis in English from a credible source. I forwarded the article to a friend who speaks Italian...hoping he can at least help me out with what exactly the article says and whether the newspaper is a credible source.

 

Just for the record, we had another thread about this here:

http://skullbrain.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=15274

 

Could you list some? I know that there were some questionable trades in the airline sector around the time of the attacks, but I believe that the FTC investigated them and they were the result of pre-existing orders from the traders.

 

Well can we first agree that the iraq war was founded on a lie? It has been proven that saddam had no links to Al-qaeda and had no weapons of mass destruction- so going on that we can safely say that bush wanted to invade Iraq for other reasons.

The man had no problem sending thousands of your fellow countrymen to their death not to mention 600,000 iraqis based on this lie. Do you think he would mind about sacrificing 3000 in New York also? He obviously wanted that war pretty badly no matter what the reason.

When you are in a position of that much power when your decisions effect the lives of millions of people, do you really think you view each dead person as a real life or just numbers and stastics?

Anyways I am by no reasons saying I have all the answers or anything like that- just looking at the edivence. I mean look at Bush the man is a retard he couldnt plan somthing like 911, he is probably just a puppet for who is really doing this stuff or has no knowledge of it at all- infact I would probably say that he is so stupid that he probably does believe that 19 arabs did all of this. Its obviously the same people who warmongered and supplied the false edivence about iraq who organised 911.

 

Sorry- that was a big long rambling post,

All im saying is that:

Someone with a lot of power and infulence in your country lead you into Iraq based on a lie for their own concealed motives. They knew full well it was gonna be a blood bath- everyone who has died out there has been for nothing. Surely in the minds of these people, killing 3000 in New York is no different, especially if its what is required to get their plan rolling.

Google:

"A Project for a new American Century."

" Rebuilding Americas Defences."

 

Everyone involved with the war. And pre-existing orders don't mean that the dealing wasn't crooked - could mean that this whole thing was a long time in the making.
I'm not saying that is WAS done by the US for money, just saying that if the US did it money could be one reason. Getting ourselves into the mid-east for support of oil/Israel could be another...though if you boil that reason down it comes back to money. Money money money.

 

Its funny- I dont know if you guys ever watch any gangster/mafia films,

Where the guy goes to play cards with them, gets in over his head, ends up oweing the mob thousands of dollers that he cannot payback. So the mob take control of his business, his shop or whatever and they start ordering things on credit- anything they can order and selling it on. They bleed the business dry and the guy has to declare himself bankrupt, looses everything and ends up hanging himself.

This current govenment are the mob and the guy is your country and you taxpayers.

The govenment is running up high debts and diverting taxpayers money directly into their own pockets. Its no secret that all the Bush family have huge stakes in arms companys- they take your tax money, get your country deeper and deeper into debt and who is the only ones making money from this war? The arms companys. Your country is now in the most debt it has ever been in its entire existance and the doller is at an all time low.

 

this is the price of oil

(thanks chris colohan)

 

Then let me ask you this: how come the people supplying the false evidence about Iraq didn't do a better job? Even before the war started, many people knew what was going on with Ahmed Chalabi, and Curveball, and the stories about uranium yellowcake in Nigeria and Atta meeting with the Iraqis in Prague. Our media did a lousy job of reporting on it, but the facts were out there, plain as day since before this fiasco even started.

So if they did such a great job with 9/11 (and I say "great job" because people who don't believe the official story are undoubtedly the minority, compared to the tremendous number of people who think that the war in Iraq was based on BS), why weren't they able to successfully mask the scent of bullshit surrounding Iraq?

I think you're giving these mystery people way too much credit.

 

GENERAL ELECTRIC and subsidiaries
NBC i think?

nice to know that a lot of your 'news' agencies are owned by arms manufacturers

 

because with 9/11 there was no time to think about it, boom it was already over and all you had was spin post-event

iraq has been going on for years, and years.. a lot longer than bush said originally. people are beginning to wonder whats up, instead of doubting the intentions from the beginning

 

That is to do with manupuliation of the media- there was no fair investigation of 9/11 the blame game started as soon as the 2nd plane hit- dont you think thats a bit strange? they are talking about Bin Laden when the 2nd plane hit?

You tell America they have just been attacked their first reaction is revenge- not to question what actually happened, especially as the media did not question it.

It was only when the Ameircan bodys started coming home with flags draped over their coffins that people started questioning the reasons for war and examining the edivence- time draged on and the nukes still wernt found.

Blame your media for questioning the iraq war and not 911- 911 is as shoddy job as the iraq war intelligence- I mean they really expect people to believe that the Laws of physics and gravity were suspended that day!

The media should always do their own research and not just relay what the govenment tells them.

The media in your country is particularly bad but the media in England isnt much better- just controlled by the govenment.

 

I admire your guys' passion for this but it's all too tidy and convenient. It's not hard for me to accept that:

- Due to our government's laziness and incompetence, 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers crashed jumbo jets into the WTC and Pentagon, killing 3,000 people and leading to a war in Afghanistan.

- Due to our president and his staffers' desire to start a war there, politicians' laziness and incompetence and a fearful attitude on the part of the media led to a war in Iraq.

I also see these things as completely separate events, but your mileage may vary.

I can't ignore stuff like this, though:

Really? Can you give us an idea of where your superior knowledge of physics and gravity comes from? Did you really figure out something was wrong on 9/12/01, or do you believe it because someone told you so? How do you know _you're_ not being lied to?

Because if there really was a conspiracy, they'd be sure to spread plenty of credible-looking disinformation out there to make people who publicly doubted the official story look silly.

 

Well, as long as you "think" that's the case, you must be right. Sorry man, but unless GE was planning 9/11 back in '93 (when GE sold it's aerospace division, including armaments division, to Lockheed Martin), you're reaching a bit. 1 incorrect assumption (which apparently equals "alot") just doesn't convince me.

 

The govenment say that jet fuel didnt melt steel- but large ammounts of melted steel were found there, so either on that one day jet fuel could burn 4 times stronger than ever before or their were explosives there.

The govenment report and the conspiracy nuts both agree that this molten, melted steel was there, they both argee the melting point of steel is 2000.

Also on that one day the force of gravity would have to be x ammount stronger for it to pull the tops of the buildings down through the building underneath at the same speed as if you dropped a bowling ball of the top. Unless of course they were explosives taking out all of the suports so their was no resistance to the fall.

The govenment reports and the conspiracy nuts both agree that the buildings fell down in 10 secs, they both agree this was close to free fall speed, the both agree in the existance of gravity.

occam's razor: the simpliest explination is normally the correct one.

Do you believe that for the first time in history jet fules burned 4 times hotter that day and that gravity was x ammount stronger or do you believe there were explosives in the buildings?

Dont even get me started on WTC7.

But yeah- I believed the official story at the time I was in shock.

But look back on it now.....