A simple question re: 9/11,Why would the U.S. fly planes int


wallyj
#1
Someone out there must have a reasonable explanation. If the world trade center was already rigged with explosives,why would the gov't take the added risk to hi-jack planes to fly into them?
 
I think not
#2
No false flag without airplanes.
 
humanbeing
#3
No kidding, eh.

Besides, if the US wanted to use terrorism to gain wider public acceptance for the ongoing devastation in the middle East (and undoubtedly, it would like any excuse it could get), and some elements within the government were prepared to carry out some sort of terrorism on their own people, then why would they target financial and military centers of power? Why not just a subway or two? Or, y'know, something along that line... That, coupled with the media showing it over and over again on TV and in newspapers, should have been more than sufficient.

Then, assuming some of the bin laden tapes were fake (which is quite possible), they could have made a tape with bin laden assuming responsibility for the attacks on the places in question...

But why jack airplanes (or control them by robots or whatever) AND rig the world trade centre with explosives whilst hitting the pentagon with a plane (or was it a missile)? Anything is possible, but there would be leaks for sure, especially for something on the magnitude of what appears to have happened.

A few hundred lives, or a few thousand, either would have worked. It was not the amount of lives that made this particular case of terrorism so widely regarded in the United States and the rest of the West, so much as it was the target (mainland US), anyhow.

Also, if there were explosives placed in the buildings, wouldn't there be wires and ****e running all over the place at least every few floors? Shouldn't there have been an overwhelming number of people claiming to have seen stuff rigged up? I've read maybe a few cases of people saying such things from conspiracy websites, which were sketchy at best. Not the overwhelming amount of claims one would expect. Then again, *perhaps* there is a HUGE coverup... just seems to an unenlightened observer such as myself that the deeper we go into this rabbit hole, the more right out to lunch it gets.
 
wallyj
#4
re;no false flag.Duh,they were american airplanes.The subway,trains,and nightclubs did not need a false flag. Try again.
 
Riyko
#5
Why would the US do that, so they'd have a reason to get rid of the people who George Bush doesn't like mainly Saddam because he attempted to kill Bush juniors dad or something to that sort and also so they'd have a reason to take the oil from the middle east. *shrugs*
 
gangstalking
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by wallyj

Someone out there must have a reasonable explanation. If the world trade center was already rigged with explosives,why would the gov't take the added risk to hi-jack planes to fly into them?

If the buildings blew up by themselves and no planes you would have a hard time explaining to most rational people how terrorits were able to rig two of the most secure buildings in New York to blow up. That would have caused questions

The planes being hijacked and flown into the building created the nessacary evil for going to war, it put the fear into the hearts of the American people, and the world for a time.

Also a few bombs in a subways was not going to convince the US public to give up their rights and freedoms to accertain that goal you needed something major and shocking. Pearl harbour revisited. Justification for war and for taking away most of the rights the American Public had, it killed 2 birds with one stone, and took how many innocent lives.

Reading about how much was known before that day, who was told or asked not to fly, and who lost their lives on the first day of the job at the WTC is really interesting stuff.

At the very least they knew, at the very worst they orchastrated it and used it as a reason for 2 wars, and for taking away some of the rights of the American people.
 
humanbeing
#7
Obviously, the US wants control of oil, "the most stupendous resource on Earth". Obviously, it used 9-11 as the pretext for the ongoing devastation in the Middle East. But that still does not explain much, if anything about a 9-11 conspiracy, Riyko.
 
humanbeing
#8
Quote:

Also a few bombs in a subways was not going to convince the US public to give up their rights and freedoms to accertain that goal you needed something major and shocking. Pearl harbour revisited.

Besides the fact that Pearl harbour was not at the time a part of the US national territory, I see where you are coming from. But how do you know a few bombs in a subway (and perhaps hundreds of lives taken) will not convince the US public to give up their rights and freedoms? Especially if you get a video of some terrorist saying that he's gonna do it over and over again (unless people give up their freedoms, etc, etc). Americans might be hooked on sugary snacks and flashy fireworks, but I'd argue a few subway bombings (or whatever -- doesn't have to be subways), would suffice, even if it ain't as grand as the twin towers.

But enough, I am want some evidence that the US government orchestrated the attacks, like some people seem to conclude. I'm not a big fan of the US, at least in the area of foreign policy, so I'd really love some solid proof. So far, at least from what I have looked at or read, I have not found that solid proof.

Quote:

At the very least they knew, at the very worst they orchastrated it and used it as a reason for 2 wars, and for taking away some of the rights of the American people.

Agreed that these are two possibilities (especially the first which I might concede is most reasonable), and agreed that they have used it to "justify" 2 "wars". But so far, based on my perhaps limited knowledge of the event, it seems that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the US government did these attacks.
 
gangstalking
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by humanbeing

Agreed that these are two possibilities (especially the first which I might concede is most reasonable), and agreed that they have used it to "justify" 2 "wars". But so far, based on my perhaps limited knowledge of the event, it seems that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the US government did these attacks.

If you are looking for one solid chunk of evidence that they knew or orchastrated it I doubt you will find it. However it's like a puzzle, each piece on it's own seems tiny and insignificant, but when you put all the pieces of the puzzle together you get a pretty good picture. That's what this is like.

-The only way we can do this is for each poster to present in the puzzle little pieces of what they know that leads them to believe this. Over the last 5 years I have read warnings before 911, people told not to fly, training operations before 911 about things very similar to 911, people arrested on the day off 911 filming the event with box cutters, like the terrorirts used, same people who worked for Isreali secret service, things polititions said and did, also previous plans by the US to do something like this to their people, etc, etc.

At first it seemed so horrific to even imagine that they could do this to their own people, but the more I read I think it's a possibility.
 
gangstalking
#10
Does anyone actually follow links? Well let me sum up the first one, it's about Operation Northwoods. A plan to give America an excuse to start a war with Cuba, it was all classified until recently.

Quote:

The plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus providing an excuse, as well as public and international backing, to launch a war against Cuba.
One element of the plan was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.

Know why it did not happen? Cause the later assassinated Kennedy said no. So 40 years later to start a war with 2 countries if you get a president to say yes, then you have your game in play. What president would say yes to such a plan though? Maybe a right wing president who thinks those people are evil and need democracy. Just a thought.

If we did not know about Northwoods for 40 years, you think we would know of Northwoods2 or whatever they called it this time?

www.gatorpress.com/badsam/page26.html (external - login to view)
www.gatorpress.com/badsam/page32.html (external - login to view)
www.gatorpress.com/badsam/page31.html (external - login to view)
www.gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html (external - login to view)
www.gatorpress.com/badsam/page10.html (external - login to view)
www.gatorpress.com/badsam/page23.html (external - login to view)

Now these are all just from one source, if you want really good feed back on this subject with lot's of links I would highly suggest the http:www.Abovetopsecret.com (external - login to view) forums. You will get some varied opinions and lot of feedback.
 
AspiringStarvingArtist
#11
Point #1...

How many times have you heard that 9-11 "felt like watching a movie"?

THAT is why they went so far as to crash the planes in to the buildings.

That is why there were TWO crashes. One to get everyone looking at the tower and another to get everyone scared as hell while the entire world watched the second one hit live.

While everyones attention was on the impact damage... the towers disintegrated... with explosives going off on every floor the falling concrete was completely pulverised on the way down (not to mention ejected far from the buildings.. so far that infact bits of people landed on roof tops) which is why we got that great effect of the huge pyroclastic cloud of crap that sufficated a number of people and covered the city itself in the destruction.. without really destroying the city.. it just seemed like that in the early days.

That is why we got to see it all ... over and over again, just like we will again today. Just like a movie. It was all organised to get everyone very angry and scared... it was suppose to be dramatic, including the stories of the heroism that day... it was all organised to manipulate our emotions and drive us to war. While we were still angry and shocked, instead of conducting a real investigation they instead told us who had done it right away.. "It was OBL and these 19 guys." (they knew who it was, but couldn't stop it before it happened - suuuure) .. so now you have someone to blame for all the death.. this was all going on while you were very angry and terrifed.. or terrored.. whatever. But they showed you a huge injustice and gave you someone to blame right away too and before you started asking too many questions, they dropped the anthrax thing on you almost right away.. and then killed Paul Wellstone as well.. sending a message to those in congress and the media not to screw with the Bush administration.

Just like a movie.

Point #2

Okay, and here is the other thing.. had the buildings just suddenly fallen down then they wouldn't have been able to blame it on anyone.. because people would have seen it for what it really was - a controlled demolition.

Don't forget that the reason the buildings allegedly fell was because of the impacts, damage to the fire control system in the building and the resulting uncontroled fires, which by what was said by the firemen before they were killed was that there wasn't much of a fire anyways.. remember most of the jet fuel from the second hit exploded outside of the building and the fire put itself out when it ran out of fuel.


Point #3

Have you read the stories about all the people who did the rescues in the days after the attacks? How sick they all are? The WTC was a "sick building". It needed major work done on it but it was already losing tons of money for the city every year, to take it down or fix it would have COST billions but if you have some "terrorists" take it down for you.. well now you can MAKE MONEY off of the insurence payments (and they actually made out double the cash, and yet to have lay one brick to rebuild the towers to this day) ... there is NO DOUBT that the building was brought down by explosives and there is MORE evidence to prove that the building was brought down in a controled demo then by the fires. A "collapse" would have taken all day, with little (or larger) bits of the tower coming off at a time.. "Oh there goes another part of the upper facade.. that whole thing is going to crumble to the ground by the end of the day." .. instead it LITTERALLY exploded.. with bits of it being tossed far away from the tower as I mentioned earlier.

And yes there was a lot of time for Zim Moving (who had an entire floor on the WTC and moved out the month before the attacks after their "staff" - Israeli explosives experts - had finished wiring up the building and placing the thermite charges) to carry out the operation.. and yes there were 100s of people involved in it and NO they will never come forward because they were agents of another government.. there will be no whistle blowers because it was in the interests of their country that this happen for them, so the USA would go and fight a bunch of their enemies for them.


Do not forget who has benifited the most from the attacks, they made their money off the destruction of the tower and ALL the money that was made off of the wars and high oil prices.. since 9-11 everything has been coming up roses financially for everyone who was involved on that end of things.. weapons makers, oil barrons all getting rich off the worst of what humanity does to itself.


9-11 is way too obviously a fake attack. You just need to find the time to go over all of the evidence and it becomes very clear that the whole thing was organised by Israeli intellegence.


Remember... Israel has been calling for wars against Arab nations now regularly SINCE 9-11.. and they USE 9-11 as their REASON for going to war with them.. if 9-11 haddn't happened what would be their rational for requesting that the USA go after Iraq and Iran? They set it up so they could tell us all that THEIR enemies are now OUR enemies and that we're in this together... it was their plan all along.


Anyways.. hope that sort of answers your question.

-VMX
 
wallyj
#12
I don't think so. The buildings came down the way they did because the floors that were hit could not support the weight above them. The massive weight of the top floors collapsing down created a pile driver effect. .....Who profits the most from high oil prices:mostly the enemies of U.S.A. and Israel,the mid-east oil producing countries. The planes did slam into the buildings in a very dramatic fashion but I doubt it very much that it was designed to cover up a controlled demolition.Also,I cannot find any thing about this Zim Moving. Anyone have a link?
 
Hotshot
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by humanbeing

Then, assuming some of the bin laden tapes were fake (which is quite possible), they could have made a tape with bin laden assuming responsibility for the attacks on the places in question...

.

Don't forget that G. Dubya used to be in bed with bin Laden...
 
humanbeing
#14
Quote:

How many times have you heard that 9-11 "felt like watching a movie"?

THAT is why they went so far as to crash the planes in to the buildings.

Do you have any proof that they did it though?

I could just as well say that Bin Laden did this... hit two towers so that while everyone was watching the first tower crumble, they could get to see the second tower get smoked.
 
BitWhys
#15
just to answer the question, because if it was only explosives then that's what the investigation would have to look for in order to report positive results.
 
Logic 7
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by AspiringStarvingArtist

Point #1...

How many times have you heard that 9-11 "felt like watching a movie"?

THAT is why they went so far as to crash the planes in to the buildings.

And a very boring "B" series movie,always predictable.Those who did the plan, werent very smart.
 
gangstalking
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7

Quote: Originally Posted by AspiringStarvingArtist

Point #1...

How many times have you heard that 9-11 "felt like watching a movie"?

THAT is why they went so far as to crash the planes in to the buildings.

And a very boring "B" series movie,always predictable.Those who did the plan, werent very smart.

They did not have to be smart just destructive.
 
Toro
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by gangstalking

Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7

Quote: Originally Posted by AspiringStarvingArtist

Point #1...

How many times have you heard that 9-11 "felt like watching a movie"?

THAT is why they went so far as to crash the planes in to the buildings.

And a very boring "B" series movie,always predictable.Those who did the plan, werent very smart.

They did not have to be smart just destructive.

Yes, Osama and al-Qaeda were very destructive, weren't they?
 
Toro
#19
Watching the conspiracists come up with their theories is like watching a "C" movie.
 
The Gunslinger
#20
The USA would have been insane to "do" 9/11. The economy tanked (entered a recession), the aerospace industry is just now recovering. Thousands of people died, the economic capital of the USA was wrecked. There are dozens of reasons of why the USA wouldn't have done 9/11, but those are usually ignored.
 
agentkgb
#21
I'm left-wing, I'm against the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, I wish Bush was out of office, etc. But if Bush wanted to use terrorist attacks to start a war, why would he risk destroying the military center of the US and miss Camp David? Certainly he didn't do enough to prevent the attacks, he gained from them, he's using it for political gain, and so on, but I don't believe the conspiracy theories.
 
Toro
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Watching the conspiracists come up with their theories is like watching a "C" movie.

Actually, its more like watching a XXX movie, only less believable, with a more ridiculous plot line and less attractive people.
 
Hotshot
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Riyko

Why would the US do that, so they'd have a reason to get rid of the people who George Bush doesn't like mainly Saddam because he attempted to kill Bush juniors dad or something to that sort and also so they'd have a reason to take the oil from the middle east. *shrugs*

Wake up, yankee. bin Laden was blamed for 9-11, not Saddam. Iraq was WMD, remember? Oh yeah, Saddam was also the man who tried to kill bush sr.. bushinski made that one personal.
 
Logic 7
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by gangstalking

Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7

Quote: Originally Posted by AspiringStarvingArtist

Point #1...

How many times have you heard that 9-11 "felt like watching a movie"?

THAT is why they went so far as to crash the planes in to the buildings.

And a very boring "B" series movie,always predictable.Those who did the plan, werent very smart.

They did not have to be smart just destructive.

Yes, Osama and al-Qaeda were very destructive, weren't they?





They were quite hard to beat ,when cia, reagan administrations and the saudis funded them, but how would they still be so strong today?? who still financially support them? .don't tell me iran, they have nothing to do with alqueada. who would profit from wars that just keep going on? military complex, weapons manufacturers, and who else?
 
Logic 7
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

Quote: Originally Posted by Riyko

Why would the US do that, so they'd have a reason to get rid of the people who George Bush doesn't like mainly Saddam because he attempted to kill Bush juniors dad or something to that sort and also so they'd have a reason to take the oil from the middle east. *shrugs*

Wake up, yankee. bin Laden was blamed for 9-11, not Saddam. Iraq was WMD, remember? Oh yeah, Saddam was also the man who tried to kill bush sr.. bushinski made that one personal.

Bin laden was blame for 9-11 by who?
 
Toro
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7

They were quite hard to beat ,when cia, reagan administrations and the saudis funded them, but how would they still be so strong today?? who still financially support them? .don't tell me iran, they have nothing to do with alqueada. who would profit from wars that just keep going on? military complex, weapons manufacturers, and who else?

The House of Saud, various Islamic charities, rich Arabs, etc.
 
humanbeing
#27
Apparently, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists have being going off about a left gatekeeper conspiracy, so Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, a 'left program' if you will, decided to give them some airtime for once.

She set up a 9/11 debate. The Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"

www.democracynow.org/article..../09/11/1345203 (external - login to view)

It is available in both audio mp3 and video format.
 
humanbeing
#28
By the way, if you are interested in watching the video file but do not want to use Realplayer, there is a spyware free .ram video player called Real Alternative on the net.

Just google the name, and you'll be able to easily find it on a reliable site.
 
gangstalking
#29
Another reason fly planes into the WTC apparently people are getting rich over all the security that now has to be in place. There was an article out this week about the billion dollar contracts some companies are landing, it's big money, that's what's come out of this.

www.usatoday.com/money/indust...industry_x.htm (external - login to view)

I guess it's true what they say, follow the money trail.
 
humanbeing
#30
Okie dokie, I just finished watching the video myself.

I gotta say, I appreciate the level of patience displayed by both James Meigs and David Dunbar. They are called liars repeatedly, but they do not respond to the insults. Rather, they consistently wait until it is their turn to speak. They come off (to me at least) as using much more reason and making much more sense.

Of course, a debate does not resolve anything. You are basically quoting people who aren't there, and presenting evidence that is usually not on hand.

That said, I am curious if anyone here can actually disprove what Meigs and Dunbar say on the program. Much of what they say destroys the conspiracy theorists' claims, or at least makes it more visible how sketchy they can be. Perhaps not coincidentally, much of what Meigs and Dunbar say is simply called lies or false by the Loose Change guys, as if Meigs and Dunbar were foolishly arguing against complete truisms (which I believe they are not).

Anyhow, I'll leave it at that for now.
 

Similar Threads

1
'Eternal planes' to watch over us
by jjw1965 | Aug 3rd, 2005
no new posts