Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by redhaze

Your continued insistence that someone had to be at an event to know what happened there

whaooo, priceless !!! speaks of denial, you must be a conservative in RL

and as for your logic fallacy, ever heard of correlation in events and serial continuity ? Bush and Rumsfield have a pattern of lying to the public, and did so for 911 and Iraq. What's so hard not to understand ? and hide behind big words like "logic fallacy" that you obviously don't understand the real meaning or the origin of it.

back to you, forrest

No need. Nothing more to add that hasn't been said

that's what I thought, you have nothing to say

so we have unreliable witness accounts, and people who weren't there describing a scene like they were there, using unreliable witness accounts as the foundation of their story

now if that's not a logic flaw for those claiming to be there, then what is

the truth is that nobody really knows what really happened, NOBODY. It's all theories, even the government version they tried to passed as facts despite the many many plot holes.

if it was a Bruce Willis movie, everyone would laugh at the plot

everyone except Harry and friends of course, they would think it was all real, because you know, Bruce Willis is in it

You're right, it was probably a missle designed to look and sound just like a plane. Then they got rid of all the people who were (not) on the plane. Then they went into a country full of dirt after they pinned it on a guy in Afghanistan, even though they wanted to go into Iraq they just forgot to pin it on them. Or something

Originally Posted by redhaze

You're right, it was probably a missle designed to look and sound just like a plane. Then they got rid of all the people who were (not) on the plane. Then they went into a country full of dirt after they pinned it on a guy in Afghanistan, even though they wanted to go into Iraq they just forgot to pin it on them. Or something

ah maybe something you don't know or were too young to remember,

in diplomatic circles, Bush told everyone on 911 that he tought it was Saddam and they would go after him in the coming weeks, and that everyone had to be on board.

The Brits barked and so did all the Europeans so the US was alone and being marginalized by their allies, basically NATO didn't want to be involved in a false pretense of war (though they did later with another fake case, the WMD)

as for the missile, we really don't know what hit the Pentagon. Evidence shows that it couldn't be a plane, and was more likely a missile. Which missile, fired by who ? nobody knows, or those who knows are keeping that secret safe.

Stupid Rumsfield did a slip of the tongue, not once, but twice, on a live conference about the Pentagon missile. He clearly identified the Pentagon strike as a missile strike, before correcting himself. His body language and speech pattern when he did make the "mistake" clearly demonstrated that it was a natural statement, not a lie or a mistake.

The truth is that you have no fucking clue about what happened, you and harry are like spectators in a Bruce Willis movie cheering about how the movie was realistic and great, simply because Bruce Willis was in it and he is the best "conservative" actor out there

Don't argue with the "IT Expert", he really knows his stuff.

Originally Posted by redhaze

So to sum it up they wanted to go into Iraq but there was no evidence or basis to do so.

Man, almost like the government didn't plan it at all. Funny how they missed taking care of what would seem to be the entire point of the whole vast conspiracy in the first place. Hmmmmmmm......

If you can't understand this very simple and obvious problem with your entire "theory" you are truly beyond hope

The pretence for the Iraq invasion was WMD's not 9/11.

The Afghanistan invasion was to go after the Talitubbies, who supposedly had supported Al Qaeda in organising and executing 9/11, although Saudi Arabia probably would have been more apt.

And yes, they are beyond hope.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by redhaze

You're right, it was probably a missle designed to look and sound just like a plane. Then they got rid of all the people who were (not) on the plane. Then they went into a country full of dirt after they pinned it on a guy in Afghanistan, even though they wanted to go into Iraq they just forgot to pin it on them. Or something

ah maybe something you don't know or were too young to remember,

in diplomatic circles, Bush told everyone on 911 that he tought it was Saddam and they would go after him in the coming weeks, and that everyone had to be on board.

The Brits barked and so did all the Europeans so the US was alone and being marginalized by their allies, basically NATO didn't want to be involved in a false pretense of war (though they did later with another fake case, the WMD)

as for the missile, we really don't know what hit the Pentagon. Evidence shows that it couldn't be a plane, and was more likely a missile. Which missile, fired by who ? nobody knows, or those who knows are keeping that secret safe.

Stupid Rumsfield did a slip of the tongue, not once, but twice, on a live conference about the Pentagon missile. He clearly identified the Pentagon strike as a missile strike, before correcting himself. His body language and speech pattern when he did make the "mistake" clearly demonstrated that it was a natural statement, not a lie or a mistake.

The truth is that you have no fucking clue about what happened, you and harry are like spectators in a Bruce Willis movie cheering about how the movie was realistic and great, simply because Bruce Willis was in it and he is the best "conservative" actor out there

I don't know about the rest of it but if he cheers for Bruce Willis I'm dropping off the fence on whichever side he isn't.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The pretence for the Iraq invasion was WMD's not 9/11.

The very first reaction of Bush on 9/11 was Iraq - or was it his wish and/or mistake as his usual...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The pretence for the Iraq invasion was WMD's not 9/11.

The very first reaction of Bush on 9/11 was Iraq - or was it his wish and/or mistake as his usual...

He never actually blamed Saddam directly for 9/11.

But he didn't mind hinting at it and letting the press and whackjobs do the rest.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

As for the nose of a plane appearing to emerge, consider the construction of that tower. It had large spaces between the columns.

So, one would expect that nose to have survived and be amongst the debris somewhere.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The pretence for the Iraq invasion was WMD's not 9/11.

The very first reaction of Bush on 9/11 was Iraq - or was it his wish and/or mistake as his usual...

He never actually blamed Saddam directly for 9/11.

But he didn't mind hinting at it and letting the press and whackjobs do the rest.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
March 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html


• Four days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush held a meeting of his advisors at Camp David.
Soon after that meeting, rumors emerged of what is by now settled historical fact: that Paul Wolfowitz, with the apparent backing of Donald Rumsfeld, spoke strongly for invading Iraq along with, or instead of, fighting in Afghanistan. (For an academic paper involving the meeting, see this.) The principals voted against moving into Iraq immediately. But from that point on it was a matter of how and when the Iraq front would open up, not whether.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...aq-war/393497/


O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

Yes they flailed around and tried to use 9/11 as a pretext to go into Iraq, even though there was not a shred of actual evidence to suggest or link Iraq to 9/11.

So somehow the CT story goes that the government caused and planned 9/11, yet just conviently forgot to concoct any evidence whatsoever to actually pin it on the guys they wanted to go after, and instead wound up inexplicably pinning it on some dude living in a cave in a dirt hole of a country, with virtually no geopolitical significance whatsoever.

Again, if you can't see how ridiculous this entire premise is you are beyond retarded

again, you are making all kind of silly assumptions

did the government orchestrated 911 ? nobody can make that claim, there is no evidence of it, and nobody in the know is speaking of course

but what we do know is that the government "theory" of the event didn't add up and is full of holes, and that government officials have been caught lying about it

from the Pentagon missile, to trying to go to Iraq over the whole event, their whole attitude have been "dodgy" and "suspicious"

now, they weren't smart enough to politically pull that one out and go to war over it, the Bush administration was politically incompetent in doing anything, but they did learn their lesson for the next excuse, and got professional help (spin doctors) to create the next story for going to war on a false pretense.

Was the government smart enough to organize 911 ? possibly, operationally competent thanks to different government agencies, without the need for the President or his staff to organize or orchestrated every details

did the government organize the 911 event ? we don't know and we will never know for sure, there is no evidence that it did

but then why lie about it and try to cover the whole situation up ? if we knew the reasons for the numerous lies that some here seems to be comfortable with for their own internal ego security (harry and friends), then the "how" will suddenly make more sense

for now, the "how they did it" is all a bunch of lies

If you have no motive then you have no story. Kind of detective work 101 right there

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The pretence for the Iraq invasion was WMD's not 9/11.

The very first reaction of Bush on 9/11 was Iraq - or was it his wish and/or mistake as his usual...

He never actually blamed Saddam directly for 9/11.

But he didn't mind hinting at it and letting the press and whackjobs do the rest.

god you are either retarded or suffering from long term memory loss, with all that sun in the desert

Originally Posted by redhaze

If you have no motive then you have no story. Kind of setective work 101 right there

oh there was a motive, don't be mistaken about it. War was one, and domestic surveillance the second. Possibly more we don't know.

Like in a criminal investigation, you might not know the real motive of the murderer, but still caught him lying about his alibis

again, because you are a deep down conservative, your brain (defective by default for all conservatives) tells you not to go there because it will shutter the rigid construct of the world you imagine

like I said, you are a Bruce Willis fan, no matter how bad the plot he is in

You just said the government didn't do it, now war and survelliance were the motivations? This is just too nuch stupid to keep up with.

No idea what you are on about with the Willis bit. And considering you champion every right wing conservative pet cause on this forum not really sure where you were headed there either

Ta

Originally Posted by redhaze

You just said the government didn't do it, now war and survelliance were the motivations? This is just too nuch stupid to keep up with.

that's because you are a conservative, you can't cross the line in terms of complex thoughts, so you focus on silly details to avoid looking at everything else, in a typical mediocre or dishonest thinking process

let me explain slower:

There is no evidence poiting to the government, yet they look guilty for their motives (war suspicion which eventually happened, and pretense for surveillance, which also happened eventually) and numerous lies. Some people at the Pentagon and Bush administration very likely "commissioned" several agencies for the ops.

Comprende ?

PS: Forget the Bruce Willis angle, too sophisticated for you

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The pretence for the Iraq invasion was WMD's not 9/11.

The very first reaction of Bush on 9/11 was Iraq - or was it his wish and/or mistake as his usual...

He never actually blamed Saddam directly for 9/11.

But he didn't mind hinting at it and letting the press and whackjobs do the rest.

god you are either retarded or suffering from long term memory loss, with all that sun in the desert

Perhaps you should read post 7763 before opening your stupid mouth, Mr. "IT Expert".

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
March 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.

harry, even from you, that takes the cake

an opinionated article on a newspaper is all you need now as evidence of Bush not wanting to go to Iraq, despite numerous evidence to the contrary from direct witnesses to diplomatic reports ?

surely, you can't be that much in denial or retarded

and the question is why would the Bush administration lied about the whole thing ? to hide their true motives ? or because they were incompetent or didn't know what their own agencies at the Pentagon were plotting behind their back ?

who the fuck knows, but what is fact is that the Bush administration lied about how 911 happened, and there was no plane at the Pentagon.

looks like a guilty attitude if there was one, in a jury, they would handed a guilty verdict, above all if the accused was black

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

harry, even from you, that takes the cake

an opinionated article on a newspaper is all you need now as evidence of Bush not wanting to go to Iraq, despite numerous evidence to the contrary from direct witnesses to diplomatic reports ?

surely, you can't be that much in denial or retarded

I didn't post it. How stupid are you?

And you told everyone you're an "IT Expert".