[quote][cite]Posted By: Martomoto[/cite]To my mind this video[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8[/url]give pretty clear evidence that the Pentagon was hit by the plane. Personally I find these conspiracy theories a bit cranky. Oh don't get me wrong - I'm sure things aren't always what they seem and governments can and do move in mysterious and somethimes dodgy ways. But to keep something of this scale quiet would be impossible. Too many people would have to be in the know. It's just not credible that the US government were behind it.[/quote]
I don't see any conspiracy, but the US government went out of its way to encourage a conspiracy rather than dispell one.
You'd have thought that Bush and Cheney as President and VP would have gone out of their way to establish the truth, but both stalled over appearing before the 9/11 Committee and chunks of the report relating to Saudi Arabia were mysteriously blanked out of the published findings. Why did the Saudi's need to be protected? Given that there were links between the Saudi royal family and the Bush family and there are credible suggestions that the Saudi royal family funded al Qaeda then that question needs answering.
Then on the day of Sept 11 a number of proceedures were ignored - if planes veer off their published routes by more than a degree or two a warning is flagged up and jets are scrambled and if necessary they are shot down if there's a danger that they might fall on a built up area. When the golfer Payne Stewart's jet de-pressurised a few years before a series of jets were scrambled to intercept the plane and shadowed it until it ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky. That plane landed in an area of forest and therefore was no danger to anyone, so the USAF let nature take its course. On Sept 11 four hijacked aircraft were allowed to fly on and even after one hit the WTC the other three planes were allowed to continue until they hit the WTC again, the pentagon and finally the last one (U93) crashed into a field in Pittsburgh apparently after the passengers fought back/or after the USAF did shoot it down. I can understand one hijacked plane sneaking through procedures, but all four? How did that happen?
[quote][cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]BFR, just to be clear
Do you believe that the US government was responsible for 9/11?[/quote]
No, I don't see any evidence that they were behind it, or were involved or had any prior knowledge, nevertheless I'm convinced that they exploited it for all its worth as a reason to invade Iraq.
Do you believe that the US government was responsible for 9/11?
No, I don't see any evidence that they were behind it, or were involved or had any prior knowledge, nevertheless I'm convinced that they exploited it for all its worth as a reason to invade Iraq.
The question of why did they do it is why (perhaps for reasons we can't understand due to having a limited knowledge on global matters?) I'm side more to it being an act of terrorism, but to assume that the American government wouldn't be capable of doing and hiding something like this because they've made schoolboy mistakes in the past is perhaps a bit ignorant. Who knows, it's all speculation and if they did it the truth would never be revealed.
The moe people that are needed for a conspiracy the more likely it is that the conspiracy will be uncovered.
Think about how many people would have to be involved in an operation like this. Then think about the chances that at least one of them would speak out.
Interestingly documents have come to light where the CIA were seriously considering hijacking a US airliner and blaming it on Cuba while developing pro-Castro terrorists cells in Miami and using that event to legitimise an invasion of Cuba. So they've got a bit of form.
This is documented fact coming out of proposals from the joint chiefs of staff by the way, not some crackpot internet theory.
They also considered attacking commonwealth countries to draw the UK into any conflict thus legitimising it.
Operation Northwoods. Never underestimate the lunacy of man.
To me avenging 9/11 became a vehicle to drive US foreign policy in the direction of Iraq's oil. That "conspiracy" seems quite plausible. However, the notion of deliberately flying planes into the two trade centres on the part of the US administration seems to me to be hokum. Yes governments do fabricate incidents on home territory to justify acts of aggression on other states ( Hitler for one), but the scale of 9/11 would be hard to keep contained. If you are going to lie tell a Big One and all that, but this incident was too big to stage in my view. Let's not forget the lucrative market in selling conspiracy theories. Books. TV. The presentation of theories circuit. Good business if you can get it.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Do I think the US used the 9/11 atrocities as carte blanche to bomb Iraq back to the stone age and give all their contractors the nice little earner of rebuilding is? Probably
Only probably? Definitely in my opinion.
But "probably" is less likely to get AFKA and Lookout sued or a visit from the black helicopters.
I can understand one hijacked plane sneaking through procedures, but all four? How did that happen?
I generally subscribe to the cock-up theory of history rather than the conspiracy theory. You've got air traffic controllers in various control centres following numerous planes at once, talking to their managers, their managers talking to the FAA, the FAA talking to their military liaison etc. Messages get lost, confused, not taken seriously, mistranscribed and so on. And once the first plane has hit the tower, everything goes totally mental, and much of the focus switches to "how the hell did that happen?" until it dawns on them that it's actually a co-ordinated attack rather than a one-off.
Let's not forget, that as a result of the terror attack the USA now have the fingerprint and eyescan for about 30% of the world's population - with a DNA register not far behind.
Would you have given this personal data freely just to get into Disneyland prior to 9/11 ?
This was truly a day that changed the world for ever - but who was behind it ? Who has benefitted ?
Not Osama and his followers that's for sure, but meanwhile the USA have control of more oil / land / trade routes and access to all the Government data they want.
Notice how quick they stopped funding terrorism in NI and how we had a peace process in a couple of years - after 25+ years of hostility.
Money Laundering - see how you can't send a few grand to your auntie without telling some bank cashier all about where you got it etc, all thanks to the USA making sure you are not funding Osama.
To recap:
They know all about you. They know what you look like. They know your travel habits. They know your spending habits (credit cards). They know where you get your money and what you do with it. They can access mobile phone records, NHS records, CCTV and any government data to find out anything else.
The 9/11 tragedy has given the USA all this control and the cost was several thousand innocent civilians. What would have been the military toll if they tried to get to this position by force - many many times more.
So many policemen, medics and firefighters went into that mess to try and make things better for the injured, and never came out alive. In total, around 7,000 children lost a parent as a result of 9/11 - heartbreaking stuff.
Assuming you had enough flying lessons to take a chance with a passenger jet, you would never be taught how to turn off the aircraft transponder - which transmits the plane's whereabouts while it is airborne. There is no reason why you would ever turn it off under normal circumstances, but these Arab guys knew where the transponders were located in the cockpit and how to turn them off.
[cite]Posted By: Valiantphil[/cite]Notice how quick they stopped funding terrorism in NI and how we had a peace process in a couple of years - after 25+ years of hostility.
The 9/11 tragedy has given the USA all this control and the cost was several thousand innocent civilians.
What would have been the military toll if they tried to get to this position by force - many many times more.
If you're referring to Irish-Americans realising the contradiction of funding terrorist organisations broadly hostile to the US government while simultaneously fighting other terrorists who in many cases are 'kindred spirits' of the IRA, then yes, I noticed it to some extent, but it kicked in slower than you're suggesting (and hostilities ended three years before 9/11).
If you're saying that at any point the American government funded terrorists in NI, then that's a hefty accusation to make. Not sure there's much evidence to support that claim.
Why does America want to know what we do with our money, what we're doing if visiting the States etc?
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]If you're saying that atanypoint the American government funded terrorists in NI, then that's a hefty accusation to make. Not sure there's much evidence to support that claim.
If you don't believe any government funded agency in the US didn't assist terrorist activities associated with Northern Ireland then you're probably shouldn't have a computer in your house. If only as a vote winner rather than any kind of moral campaign it'd be dumb as a box of rocks to suggest it hadn't happened on any level. Do you seriously believe that US agencies didn't "at least" turn a blind eye to the supply of explosives and funds used to kill British troops and civilians. Or do you not think about or research your fu*king "opinions" before spunking them onto forums.
Will you be telling me that there's not much evidence to support the "claim" that they give Israel the odd little leg up either.
Jaw droppingly stupid. I was trying to stay of this retarded thread.
People who claim a conspiracy point to such things as -
The collapse of the apparently undamaged 'Building 7' That the towers structure should not have melted because the heat wasn't hot enough Passports of terrorists conveniently found on top of rubble Eyewitnesses at time thought they heard bombs going off, including police/resue workers The phone calls made from one of the planes were a fraud The inabilty of the pilots
Some online quotes:
n January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the "911 Truth Movement" — claim to have exposed.
Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Three or four years ago I saw some Internet videos like 'Loose Change' and '911 In Plane Site' and I began to ask questions," Fujita said in an interview, "but I still couldn't believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida.
"Last year I watched more videos and read books written by professor David Ray Griffin (a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University who wrote the most famous Truth Movement book, 'The New Pearl Harbor') about things such as the collapse of World Trade Center No. 7. This building, which was never hit by an airplane, collapsed straight down. Between the videos showing the way it fell, and the numerous reports of explosions, many are convinced that this building was demolished."
Fujita's presentation to the Diet and Fukuda focused a great deal on yet another aspect of 9/11 that now quite a few around the world find extremely suspicious: the Pentagon crash.
"I don't think (a) 767 could have hit the Pentagon," Fujita reckons. "There is no evidence of the plane itself. Almost nothing identifiable was left on the lawn or inside. The official story says the entire plane disintegrated, but the jet engines in particular were very strong (two 6-ton titanium steel turbine engines). And the damage to the building is much smaller than the size of the supposed airplane. The official claims just don't fit the facts."
While some label that claim "wacky" and label critics of the official 9/11 story "conspiracy theorists," Fujita has impressive company. For one, former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'
"So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]Can't see a cheque or any cash in Ted's hands...
Check his jacket pocket!
4th longest serving senator in US history. Not in governement but a pretty powerful man, you would be a fool to believe that he didn't have any influence.
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]Can't see a cheque or any cash in Ted's hands...
Check his jacket pocket!
4th longest serving senator in US history. Not in governement but a pretty powerful man, you would be a fool to believe that he didn't have anyinfluence.
Looks like a hankie to me.
Erm... I thought Senators were "in government"??? If not, what function do they perform?
Senators are the equivalent of members of parliament, except in the US they seperate out the legislature and the Government so you can't be a member of both (with the exception of the Vice-President who has some function in the Senate).
Comments
Do you believe that the US government was responsible for 9/11?
I don't see any conspiracy, but the US government went out of its way to encourage a conspiracy rather than dispell one.
You'd have thought that Bush and Cheney as President and VP would have gone out of their way to establish the truth, but both stalled over appearing before the 9/11 Committee and chunks of the report relating to Saudi Arabia were mysteriously blanked out of the published findings. Why did the Saudi's need to be protected? Given that there were links between the Saudi royal family and the Bush family and there are credible suggestions that the Saudi royal family funded al Qaeda then that question needs answering.
Then on the day of Sept 11 a number of proceedures were ignored - if planes veer off their published routes by more than a degree or two a warning is flagged up and jets are scrambled and if necessary they are shot down if there's a danger that they might fall on a built up area. When the golfer Payne Stewart's jet de-pressurised a few years before a series of jets were scrambled to intercept the plane and shadowed it until it ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky. That plane landed in an area of forest and therefore was no danger to anyone, so the USAF let nature take its course. On Sept 11 four hijacked aircraft were allowed to fly on and even after one hit the WTC the other three planes were allowed to continue until they hit the WTC again, the pentagon and finally the last one (U93) crashed into a field in Pittsburgh apparently after the passengers fought back/or after the USAF did shoot it down. I can understand one hijacked plane sneaking through procedures, but all four? How did that happen?
Do you believe that the US government was responsible for 9/11?[/quote]
No, I don't see any evidence that they were behind it, or were involved or had any prior knowledge, nevertheless I'm convinced that they exploited it for all its worth as a reason to invade Iraq.
I won't dispute that.
Think about how many people would have to be involved in an operation like this. Then think about the chances that at least one of them would speak out.
This is documented fact coming out of proposals from the joint chiefs of staff by the way, not some crackpot internet theory.
They also considered attacking commonwealth countries to draw the UK into any conflict thus legitimising it.
Operation Northwoods. Never underestimate the lunacy of man.
However, the notion of deliberately flying planes into the two trade centres on the part of the US administration seems to me to be hokum. Yes governments do fabricate incidents on home territory to justify acts of aggression on other states ( Hitler for one), but the scale of 9/11 would be hard to keep contained. If you are going to lie tell a Big One and all that, but this incident was too big to stage in my view.
Let's not forget the lucrative market in selling conspiracy theories. Books. TV. The presentation of theories circuit.
Good business if you can get it.
I generally subscribe to the cock-up theory of history rather than the conspiracy theory. You've got air traffic controllers in various control centres following numerous planes at once, talking to their managers, their managers talking to the FAA, the FAA talking to their military liaison etc. Messages get lost, confused, not taken seriously, mistranscribed and so on. And once the first plane has hit the tower, everything goes totally mental, and much of the focus switches to "how the hell did that happen?" until it dawns on them that it's actually a co-ordinated attack rather than a one-off.
Would you have given this personal data freely just to get into Disneyland prior to 9/11 ?
This was truly a day that changed the world for ever - but who was behind it ? Who has benefitted ?
Not Osama and his followers that's for sure, but meanwhile the USA have control of more oil / land / trade routes and access to all the Government data they want.
Notice how quick they stopped funding terrorism in NI and how we had a peace process in a couple of years - after 25+ years of hostility.
Money Laundering - see how you can't send a few grand to your auntie without telling some bank cashier all about where you got it etc, all thanks to the USA making sure you are not funding Osama.
To recap:
They know all about you.
They know what you look like.
They know your travel habits.
They know your spending habits (credit cards).
They know where you get your money and what you do with it.
They can access mobile phone records, NHS records, CCTV and any government data to find out anything else.
The 9/11 tragedy has given the USA all this control and the cost was several thousand innocent civilians.
What would have been the military toll if they tried to get to this position by force - many many times more.
So many policemen, medics and firefighters went into that mess to try and make things better for the injured, and never came out alive.
In total, around 7,000 children lost a parent as a result of 9/11 - heartbreaking stuff.
Assuming you had enough flying lessons to take a chance with a passenger jet, you would never be taught how to turn off the aircraft transponder - which transmits the plane's whereabouts while it is airborne. There is no reason why you would ever turn it off under normal circumstances, but these Arab guys knew where the transponders were located in the cockpit and how to turn them off.
If you havent already seen it there is a second film its called zeitgeist addendum
There's another film called "Wake up call" aswell which i find interesting. If you're interested and can't find it online, pm your address.
If you're referring to Irish-Americans realising the contradiction of funding terrorist organisations broadly hostile to the US government while simultaneously fighting other terrorists who in many cases are 'kindred spirits' of the IRA, then yes, I noticed it to some extent, but it kicked in slower than you're suggesting (and hostilities ended three years before 9/11).
If you're saying that at any point the American government funded terrorists in NI, then that's a hefty accusation to make. Not sure there's much evidence to support that claim.
Why does America want to know what we do with our money, what we're doing if visiting the States etc?
Will you be telling me that there's not much evidence to support the "claim" that they give Israel the odd little leg up either.
Jaw droppingly stupid. I was trying to stay of this retarded thread.
If it's a policy that's a vote-getter, then there'd be evidence. Usually vote-getting policies are advertised, that's how they get votes.
And there's loads of evidence that the US supports the Israeli army, so thanks for the nonsequiter.
I agree completely that the IRA were largely funded by Americans, I don't agree that they were funded by the American government
People who claim a conspiracy point to such things as -
The collapse of the apparently undamaged 'Building 7'
That the towers structure should not have melted because the heat wasn't hot enough
Passports of terrorists conveniently found on top of rubble
Eyewitnesses at time thought they heard bombs going off, including police/resue workers
The phone calls made from one of the planes were a fraud
The inabilty of the pilots
Some online quotes:
n January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the "911 Truth Movement" — claim to have exposed.
Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Three or four years ago I saw some Internet videos like 'Loose Change' and '911 In Plane Site' and I began to ask questions," Fujita said in an interview, "but I still couldn't believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida.
"Last year I watched more videos and read books written by professor David Ray Griffin (a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University who wrote the most famous Truth Movement book, 'The New Pearl Harbor') about things such as the collapse of World Trade Center No. 7. This building, which was never hit by an airplane, collapsed straight down. Between the videos showing the way it fell, and the numerous reports of explosions, many are convinced that this building was demolished."
Fujita's presentation to the Diet and Fukuda focused a great deal on yet another aspect of 9/11 that now quite a few around the world find extremely suspicious: the Pentagon crash.
"I don't think (a) 767 could have hit the Pentagon," Fujita reckons. "There is no evidence of the plane itself. Almost nothing identifiable was left on the lawn or inside. The official story says the entire plane disintegrated, but the jet engines in particular were very strong (two 6-ton titanium steel turbine engines). And the damage to the building is much smaller than the size of the supposed airplane. The official claims just don't fit the facts."
While some label that claim "wacky" and label critics of the official 9/11 story "conspiracy theorists," Fujita has impressive company. For one, former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'
"So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
have you read the men that stare at goats?
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, that's senator Ted Kennedy.
Sorry to one to break the news to you but Ted Kennedy has never been a member of any American Government.
4th longest serving senator in US history. Not in governement but a pretty powerful man, you would be a fool to believe that he didn't have any influence.
Looks like a hankie to me.
Erm... I thought Senators were "in government"??? If not, what function do they perform?