First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Was September 11, an inside job by the US?
Posted 4/26/08 , edited 4/26/08
www.911truth.com
www.infowars.com
www.911mysteries.com
www.whatreallyhappened.com

911 Coincidences

On September 11,2001 (911), the World Trade Centers were attacked by a terrorist group known as al-Qaeda. 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers crashed two of the airliners American Airlines Flight 11, and United Airlines Flight 175, into the World Trade Center in New York City. This resulted in the collapse of both buildings. The hijackers crashed the third airliner American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon located in Virginia. Passenger and flight crew from the fourth aircraft, United Airlines Flight 93, attempted to retake control of the plane, but it crashed in a field i Pennsylvania. 2,974 people died as a result of the attacks, with another 24 missing and presumed dead.

This is the official story the US government has stuck to, but there are many holes that raise speculation about the incident.

1) In the 100-plus years of of steel framed buildings, only three have ever collapsed due to fire. All three buildings fall at free fall speed.
2) Fire fighters, police officers, reporters, and medical personel all seen explosions going off inside the buildings.
3)In September 2000, a right-wing think tank drafted a document called "Project for New American Century"(PNAC). It says that if we are going to transform America into " tomorrows dominent force", it is going to be a long process , unless theres a catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor.
4) On the morning of 911, Norad was in day two of a week long terrorist drill called "Vigilant Guardian". This exercise was a simulation of a real terrorist attack on the WTC, involving hijacked airliners.
5) The official story is that WTC 7 collapsed as a result of fire, yet the building had all the makings of a controlled ddemolition. The lease holder of the building even admitted that he gave the order to pull the building down.
6) Fact, uncontrolled jet-fuel fires cannot liquidize steel. Steel melts at 2750 degrees f and and above. Open air fires burn at 1200 degrees f max. Also, thermite can melt steel.
7) Controlled demolition experts all say it was a controlled demolition. The steel beams at the bottomm to the towers were cut at angles to make the towers fall.
8) The Bush administration has done everything to prevent a full investigation into 911. President Bush, and Dick Cheney will not testify under oath for 911.

These are only some of the detail that prove 911 was an inside job. Did the US goverment use false flag operations in oreder to scare the US into war? If Osama Bin Laden was in fact responsible for the attacks, then where is the proof? Is the US goverment trying to become tomorrows "dominent force."

I do believe 911 was an inside job by the government in order to lure the US people into supporting a war that should never have happened. Bush and Cheney need to testify under oath! There are 19 videos that go on to explain into depth what i have originally stated above. I highly recomend you all watch the videos before responding to this thread. I am aware that some of the videos are lenghty, but i believe if you watch them you will also begin to question official story.


sorry i dont know how to make the links work, you can go to youtube and type in "911 coincidences part one" and go on from there. The videos were uploaded by NufffRespect
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/26/08
I highly doubt the government would kill thousands of innocent Americans and spend all that time and money sending firefighters and policeman to rescue people just to start a war. Even though Bush may be an idiot (I can't really say since I don't pay much attention to politics), he's not that heartless.
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / somewhere out there
Offline
Posted 4/26/08
6468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/26/08 , edited 4/26/08
Wow i watched all the videos and i was stunned... I or course had heard of conspiracy theories, but didnt think they had evidence of them...

These videos provided evidence from every point of view possible, I find it almost impossible to deny...

Some Facts that really provided hard evidence for me were

The fact that steel melts at 2750 degrees and the hottest those flames caused by the plane crash could be was 1800 and that butt loads of melted steel were found in the rubble.

That 7 of the original people accused of flying these planes are still alive! and that the government hasnt bothered to update the list.

Also the eye witness accounts (in part 17 or 18) are impossible to deny. Every single one of them thought something was up.

The way the bush administration has refused to do anything about finding out the truth.
51 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / my nest
Offline
Posted 4/26/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:

I highly doubt the government would kill thousands of innocent Americans and spend all that time and money sending firefighters and policeman to rescue people just to start a war. Even though Bush may be an idiot (I can't really say since I don't pay much attention to politics), he's not that heartless.


They had a plan to try this durring the Kennedy administration but he threw it out. Its called a False flag attack and its been done in a LOT of wars including our very own Vietnam war.
Dont be so quick to throw out this idea, after all it gets them LOTS of money.
6598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 4/26/08 , edited 4/26/08
I think it doesn't matter anymore who truly did it or not. The damage has already been done to both sides. And yes it is possible for the US to have planned this. Desperate times call for desperate measures. And it is possible as well that the terrorist group Al Qaeda did it. As impossible as it sounds that the own government would sacrifice their own citizens, this event gave the opportunity to the US to have a reason to attack Iraq. The "war on terror", I highly doubt that it's just for the good of people. Iraq has oil. And I think that's a very valid reason to do all these extreme actions. But, who knows? The world has a lot of very brilliant minds and truth has a way of evading us.
3980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / 全部の庭
Offline
Posted 4/27/08
i think yes
467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M / Malaysia
Offline
Posted 4/27/08
i think yes
8211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 4/27/08
This reminds me of one of the south park ep.

In that ep. it shows that the US government were trying to cover up the fact that they cause 9/11. However, they didnt cause 9/11 but were trying to show everyone that they did and trying to cover it up. The reason why they did this was because they wanted everyone to think that they still had power over the people in US.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 4/27/08 , edited 4/27/08
Untill I see some decent media coverage refuting the evidence instead of calling scientist conspiracy theorist like they always do when they avoid refuting I will believe it is an inside job. There would have been no other way to sell the war on Iraq to the American people without it.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 4/27/08

geeene_16 wrote:

I think it doesn't matter anymore who truly did it or not.


On the contrary, it is very important to know who did this. Regardless of his reasons for doing so, many feel we should not have a leader elected by the public turn around and attack that very public. Furthermore, the orchestration of such an event would likely implicate other important members of the government, and we would be able to conclude that any action taken against others on the grounds of a terrorist attack, be they natives or foreigners (Iraqis in this case), is actually for another purpose. Perhaps some feel that this sort of thing is necessary for a generally safer and more efficient society, but two questions come to mind:

1.) Where do we draw the line between the ethical and the necessary, and what defines them?
2.) How does one chosen by the people to protect and serve the people justifiably choose to harm them in a way that only a few wish?

I have seen arguments for U.S. involvement in the destruction and then their counter-arguments, so I do not even know what "evidence" is true; therefore, I cannot make a judgment. I am well aware of the numerous insane conspiracy theorists out there as well as faulty or biased (at best) media coverage, so it is difficult to know what information can be trusted anymore.
Posted 4/27/08 , edited 4/27/08

Regulus133 wrote:


geeene_16 wrote:

I think it doesn't matter anymore who truly did it or not.


On the contrary, it is very important to know who did this. Regardless of his reasons for doing so, many feel we should not have a leader elected by the public turn around and attack that very public. Furthermore, the orchestration of such an event would likely implicate other important members of the government, and we would be able to conclude that any action taken against others on the grounds of a terrorist attack, be they natives or foreigners (Iraqis in this case), is actually for another purpose. Perhaps some feel that this sort of thing is necessary for a generally safer and more efficient society, but two questions come to mind:

1.) Where do we draw the line between the ethical and the necessary, and what defines them?
2.) How does one chosen by the people to protect and serve the people justifiably choose to harm them in a way that only a few wish?

I have seen arguments for U.S. involvement in the destruction and then their counter-arguments, so I do not even know what "evidence" is true; therefore, I cannot make a judgment. I am well aware of the numerous insane conspiracy theorists out there as well as faulty or biased (at best) media coverage, so it is difficult to know what information can be trusted anymore.


Good point, but i feel its also important to remember George Bush became president without winning the popular vote, and he was elected in 2001, the same year 911 happened, is this also a coincidence?
4344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / auckland
Offline
Posted 4/27/08
dude this thread is a duplicate.. plus this discussion had been done over and over and over again.. it won't solve anything.. for me, i believe that it is an inside job, i research abt it, i talked abt it, etc etc.. but wtf can we do abt it? nothing but an interesting dinner talk.
Posted 4/27/08 , edited 4/27/08

supermalv wrote:

dude this thread is a duplicate.. plus this discussion had been done over and over and over again.. it won't solve anything.. for me, i believe that it is an inside job, i research abt it, i talked abt it, etc etc.. but wtf can we do abt it? nothing but an interesting dinner talk.


dude if you keep that mindset that you yourself cant do anything then you most likely do not vote. you talking about it and informing others causes a chain reaction that will expose the corruption of the government. Even if your not from the US this has been going on in many places around the world. I recommend you watch the movie Zeitgeist so you can see that the US involvment in war may in fact involve your country one day.
6598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 4/27/08

Regulus133 wrote:


geeene_16 wrote:

I think it doesn't matter anymore who truly did it or not.


On the contrary, it is very important to know who did this. Regardless of his reasons for doing so, many feel we should not have a leader elected by the public turn around and attack that very public. Furthermore, the orchestration of such an event would likely implicate other important members of the government, and we would be able to conclude that any action taken against others on the grounds of a terrorist attack, be they natives or foreigners (Iraqis in this case), is actually for another purpose. Perhaps some feel that this sort of thing is necessary for a generally safer and more efficient society, but two questions come to mind:

1.) Where do we draw the line between the ethical and the necessary, and what defines them?
2.) How does one chosen by the people to protect and serve the people justifiably choose to harm them in a way that only a few wish?

I have seen arguments for U.S. involvement in the destruction and then their counter-arguments, so I do not even know what "evidence" is true; therefore, I cannot make a judgment. I am well aware of the numerous insane conspiracy theorists out there as well as faulty or biased (at best) media coverage, so it is difficult to know what information can be trusted anymore.


Well the question here then is, what happens then if Bush really administered the whole thing? The US would also be put to chaos, and would face more political damage compared to what we have now. I mean my point is that each side already made very risky decisions that whoever truly did it or not wouldn't really matter, because the supposed intentions for having this 'retaliation' already changed. That's just my opinion. I mean, politics just has a way of doing things, even if it would affect a lot of people in a negative way as long as they gain something to it. But you do have points that I somehow agree with.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.