Claiming "all" and "leaders" with these things is a little broad. And who cares about those who point fingers and assign blame?

Look at those who just ask questions, raise doubts, and show how the official theory is wrong. Not just the Jersey Girls or the celebrity doubters, but those who just express doubt...

Not that I've researched most of them, but the over 1600 vetted architects and engineers at AE911Truth.org hardly strike me as any of the types of miscreants you mention...



:D

i am obviously talking about the people who came out of nowhere and started the movement. that got people like you spinning in a hamster cage wasting time and effecting no change irl.

name one concrete change the "truth" movement has done to end war, decrease social injustice and so on. it's been a decade. there must be some victories comparable to say the civil rights movement no?

Well they definitely got me back in the hamster cage, but the first thing I thought when they went down was that they had pre-set demolition charges to reduce the chances that the buildings could topple and crush and destroy a lot more people and property. It was a knee-jerk reaction, unthinking, and about as logical as thinking that plane crash damage and fires could have created conditions equal to a foundry to cause the collapse.

The more info came out, the more the news/government story came out as bullshit to me.

My first thought when I heard a second plane hit the other tower, was that the US is getting blowback from all their overseas/foreign policy shit. It was like, "Damn, I was wondering when this was going to happen."

Nobody really knew or had heard of Al Qaeda or Ben Laden then, and his stated objectives were to attack points of foreign occupation, military targets and basically telling the US to get out of Saudi Arabia.... so when they said he had something to do with this, that was already - Whoah... What?

Fishy from the git-go, though my views were so weird to others that I basically couldn't have a discussion about it.

Still can't have a *civil* discussion about it, but now that some quite overt points of what-the-fuck have come up, and the Jersey Girls, and so on... it's more easily talked about...

Like I said, forget the nutters, and the conspiracy theorists - who include the government supporters IMHO

This is just to respond to Mark's so-called "analytical" post, which contradicts a later post he made concerning Galileo's observation of the rate of velocity of falling objects (which I believe wasn't actually quantified until Newton, but I might be wrong...)

--

According to NIST: their findings do not support the ?pancake theory? of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system?that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns?consisted of a grid of steel ?trusses? integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...aqs_082006.cfm
Now this shows that NIST establishes progressive collapse, or pancaking, could not have occurred. Later, rather than inward bowing they "establish" that outward bowing occurred.

They also said that there was no evidence of any sort of incendiary or explosive force/s exerted on the structure, but later admit they didn't test or search for that...

Exactly. There was much more resistance than just air, yet the building/s fell as though there was no more resistance than air; even if somehow each storey below the collapsing "block" had been at 10% it's structural integrity, it still would have presented more resistance to the falling mass than what we saw and the "collapse" would have taken much longer.

The tests found that, typical for construction steel used in the 1960s when the World Trade Center was erected, the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch. Often they were capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_152121.html

Of course, I'm sure if you broke it down, none of their statements were lies. They were, however, misleading in that they were mostly conjectural, explained partial phenomena without encompassing entire events and much like the 9/11 commission presented only arguments that bolstered their pre-conceived conclusions.

However when each and every event, non-event, or consequence of any event on such a day are due to coincidental occurrences, you have to look beyond happenstance to a common factor - at least allow for the excessive number of coincidental going beyond coincidence.

Mindy Kleinberg, one of the "Jersey Girls" pretty brilliantly summed it up in her overlooked/ignored testimony to the 9/11 commission:

With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin..._kleinberg.htm

There's no proof the Saudis did it or were more than peripherally involved.

You don't think WTC was demolished because... what? Because you believe that three unprecedented events can happen for the first time in history all on the same day? Because two planes can "knock down" three buildings? Because though most buildings around and closer to the two towers suffered more damage they didn't collapse perfectly symmetrically to their base the way WTC7 did?


Why is it "unlikely" the government have a part in it? Has the government never considered or participated in operations of this kind? USS Liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lib...paign=wordtwit, GLADIO https://youtube.com/watch?v=7fB6nViwJcM, MKUltra, the Tuskegee experiments, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment,

Unfortuntely, "government", whether it's the Nazis, Israelis, British or Americans, have proven over and over again that they are willing to make "sacrifices" of their citizens for what they consider a "greater cause".

But, but but but Mediaguy...

Your basic argument is that WTC was demolished. The link above to NIST says that

. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.

Ok, it didn't pancake like it looked like it did on TV, to me, a non engineer, but Nist did not say that it was demolished either. There is still zero proof that WTC was demolished.

Why not?

2 Planes did NOT knock down 3 buildings. 2 planes damaged 2 equal buildings enough for them to collapse. The 3rd building fell because of the severe damage it received from the other falling buildings. Very easy to believe.

This is irrelevant. Different buildings would be affected differently if struck by debris. Even worse, those buildings were struck by Different Debris, of different mass, at different speeds. This kind of argument is what clouds the issue. You are attempting to assert probability as fact and using it as basis to fortify your claims of different issues.


Lots of reasons make it unlikely. First, I *HAVE* to believe that people love their country. There is little to gain. It is impossible to keep a secret. etc etc. And don't forget I'm saying the WHole Government. Maybe its possible that some bastards in the government had a hand in it, we may never now. I'm willing to accept that idea and discuss it. My only argument that I have always had is that the WTC simply didn't look at all to me like a controlled demolition. I have not seen anything that proves it to me, so I'll argue it.

This is why you bring in foreigners for the job, people who you can justify to them that it will benefit their own nation. It doesn't mean that nation is behind the attack, just that people from there are very useful for the covert tasks. Whereas those who are loyal to the US are far too risky; it would be madness to get them involved, like you say.

And yet still no one can give me a reason other than a pipeline that hasn't been built, and most likely will never be built being as built due to the entire country being unstable after ten years of war.

Actually I responded, but since I don't think we can actually know who or why, it's a long-winded response:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18816587&postcount=747

:D

1. $1 to $3 Trillion in mineral wealth (same reason as Soviets)
http://dev.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=165705&cid=1

2. Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAPI) - The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. That is why Afghanistan is important, and why Georgia is important because landlocked oil and natural gas cannot get to the oceans without the pipelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article898904.ece

3. Opium - Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world "According to EU agencies, Afghanistan has been Europe?s main heroin supplier for more than 10 years." "In 2010, Russia accused United States of supporting the opium production in Afghanistan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_p...n#cite_note-23

4. Gradually surrounding Iran for when the time arrives to take them out

because it's going to take time? the keystone pipeline is going to take forever to build and that's between allies. not hard to wrap your mind around.

Yeah, I saw that, but I had already written a long winded response to someone about else about the subject.

So we'll just be able to take all of that and no one will say a thing? Just like we did with Iraq? So we've been there what, ten years - have we bled the country dry yet?

We've beat this to death already. The pipeline hasn't been built, and invading Afghanistan makes it unlikely that it will be built in the near future.

So the United States wants to country the illegal opium industry? Yeah, that's it.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think we invaded a landlocked country so we could invade another country at a later date? That's comical. Why would we invade a country that is landlocked and difficult to get to, when we already were in Iraq?

BTW, we left Iraq, so we no longer have Iran surrounded.

Then... Look at it from a military point of view - Do you really think we are going to use Afghanistan as a base to attack Iran when the only way into Afghanistan is through Pakistan... Who is fucking unstable they might cut us off at any time, not to mention it's difficult at best to keep the supply lines there open?

Iran and Iraq, and the entire Middle East, has been on the neocon agenda since before Bush II's first election/inauguration...

And "pulling out" of Iraq may be just a play on words, what with the contractor forces and CIA shell game that is probably going to happen:

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20094901

:D

how hard is that to understand the united states wants a foothold there for future conflicts? you don't have to be a military genius to get that. you think they poured billions down the drain so far for a school and to catch bin laden? why do you think they are there?

So your saying that we need a "foothold" in the Middle East in case there is a war?

Do you have any idea of how dumb that sounds? We need to start two wars in the Middle East "in case" we have a war in the Middle East?

The truth is no one has a viable reason for us to be in Afghanistan. Don't tell me we are taking resources we haven't taken, pipelines that haven't been built, or the fact that we started multiple wars in the Middle East to be in a better position in case there is a war in the Middle East.

You got nothing there.

So you are a military genius who believes we started two wars so we could be in a better position in case war breaks out in the Middle East?

And do you really think the US wants to create a foothold in a landlocked country where our only supply line could be cut off instantly by the country that hid Bin Laden for ten years?

so why did they throw billions down the drain and lose so many lives then?

No, not at all. I don't advocate any US, NATO or international community "footprint" or stronghold in the Middle East at all. I was just saying that occupation of the entire area, whether overtly military/security-oriented or underhandedly a la Iran/Mossadegh of the 1950s, is in their agenda and will probably be reached.

I think that area should (have been?) be allowed to develop or founder according to their means and resources. If there's any terrorism or targeted foreign interests in the area (and elsewhere) it's because the West has been dicking around there forever, at least since the early fifties, all in corporate interests, not even on a real idealogical foreign-policy front.

If the west hadn't grown so reliant on oil industry resource acquisition, maybe alternate energy industries could have flourished here at the expense of foreign resources, oil in particular.

The problem with US Foreign Policy is that it doesn't just want to be one of the players - it wants to dominate - to BE - the game board.

From the 80s and 90s to now it's been push and pull with those objectives, from Iran/Contra to the Iran/Iraq conflict to the Russian/Afghan situation. Then, two things happened that gave the neocons their hard-on - first they got their monkey-boy Bush elected with many of them in tow, and then 9/11 happened - from which they profitted in many ways, not just monetarily, which you have to admit whether 9/11 was a let-it-happen, made-it-happen or none-of-the-above event.

Also - regarding your statement about the US interest in Afghanistan's opium production: from Air America to Iran/Contra, to the Pablo Escobar consolidation in South America brought about by the CIA, and other such trafficking connivances of the special branches, can you really laugh off the possibility (granted it's undocumented yet) that certain levels of US foreign operations has an interest in the opium trade on an under-the-radar level?

This is a common misconception - that all oil comes from the Middle East. This is not true. We have this concept that all oil comes from the Middle East, but that's only because that's all the Middle East has as an export. Russia is the world's largest producer of oil, and the United States is third. So the US produces a vast amount of oil, and the top two exporters to the US are Canada and Mexico.

Since WWII, the US has been overly concerned with oil production and rightfully so. One of the reasons Germany and Japan were defeated were because of their lack of oil production, Germany by land and Japan by cutting off ocean shipments. While we will always depend on Middle Eastern oil to a point, this has become less and less. We no longer buy oil from Iran and we do not have any gas shortages here in the US.

This is not the general policy of the US government or even any department, but instead rouge operatives financing their case of the moment.

We've invaded Afghanistan, have we taken over the Opium market? No, of course not.

2012 Rochard. This year is supposed to be the start of construction of the pipe. Not 5 years ago, not 10 years ago, but this year.

But since they can't seem to get things under control, no telling if it will happen this year or not.

As dumb as you think this and other things sound, that doesn't mean they are not happening or being planned. The whole fucking thing is dumb. All of it. But it's happening with or without your or my approval. The same applies to thinking that having a strong presence in the middle east is dumb. Guess what, they did exactly that! It's only "dumb" because you don't understand it.

Honestly man, spend some time and read up about this. A ton of info out there about the subject. Sounding "dumb" is not a reason for something not to happen. Saying they are going to the moon was fucking dumb at the time, but they did it. So were credit default swaps. And you see how that all worked out. It's dumb to spend 500 million on a project that will try to keep kids still during kindergarten class, but they are doing it anyway. The dumb list is huge, and when it comes to the government that list has no boundaries.

Newsflash, yes we have. Since the 2001 invasion opium production has been on the rise and Afghanistan is producing more than ever. And we have Americans and private military soldiers guarding the fields.

Afghanistan is also the largest producer of hash in the world.

Just like the coke in South America, the USA had their hands in that too. Now they have their hands in the opium trade. There is no war on drugs. There is only the powers that be controlling the supply, which creates more demand, which turns more profit, which also keeps the business of their prisons full of people. The whole thing is a huge fucking racket.

Also by controlling the supply they don't flood an already over supplied market for medical production. Price control on medicine.

All the info and data is out there. You can continue to call it dumb or you can educate yourself and learn something about what's really going on.

I didn't say that, and I'm aware of the domestic entry points or sources of oil.

Though I only glancingly referred to the corporate interests, in the case of oil these are trans-global and certainly the oil lobby works hard at getting US foreign policy (and by extension the British) to reflect their needs.

This is debatable to me but it's done, and now it seems the huge western-based multinationals seem to be reaching for every last drop for the world market demand on what's been referred to the beginning/end of peak oil.

They never become "rogue" until they're outed, though; and though there are usually very skimpy paper trails back to the high offices of government, these kinds of operations are usually undisclosed and "indicators" (and too often not enough proof) point to administration/s that turn a blind eye.

I don't know... do you? I mean the whole crack/cocaine epidemic was evidently aided by CIA involvement, if not entirely set up by "rogue" operatives trying to win the drug war in South America - which, statistically, they succeeded in that they destroyed the Colombian networks and operations, but in terms of drug entry to the US they lost big time because of the consolidation of most of the supply to a few, cooperative cocaine kingpins.

More recently we've had unfortunate blowback from the DEA/CIA "Operation Fast & Furious" around the Mexican drug wars and gun smuggling.

When the US first kicked out the Taliban, I expected opium production to start again; European and North American markets had been seriously depressed and had opened up to black market pharmaceuticals and pot trafficking, as well as all kinds of chemical stimulants and opiate substitutes. Then when they installed Karzai as head of Afghanistan and his brother ended up joining the government (after spending a decade in the Chicago "restaurant" business apparently), and his employ by the CIA in forming special Afghan strike teams, etc., you just knew the opium market was going to explode, and start drug and organized crime wars. Sure enough, Mexico went nuts, the US east coast, both north and south, had their regime changes, and even here in Montreal the "old skool" dons and established families had some serious assassinations and mobster related action.

This is all since 2005 or so. There's no actual documented revelations yet (the situation is still too fresh), but lots of incidentals, reports and internal memos have come out about Karzai (who denied everything) and the CIA (who apparently don't have anyone but spokespeople working for them), opium production (which has skyrocketed since the Taliban were ousted) and other juicy details that all point to a new lucrative source of financing and intelligence networking for the "rogues".

I'm just waiting for a Daniel Ellsberg or Seymour Hersh to dig up the dirt...

:D

.

The whole thing was carried out by Jews. From planning to execution. Reason? So it can lead to the elimination of Israel's enemies one by one. Israel controls the USA. Remember that. If they wanted the attacks to happen on 9-11 our govt has no say. They simply move aside and let it happen. Israel carried it out because it would be the only way to put the USA in war mode with the support of the public against so many enemies. This will not end with Iran. This all goes deeper than opium or oil. Use your brains people.

If you believe that we were attacked by the most complicated most perfectly executed attack ever on 9-11 but haven't been attacked since then because our war on terror is successful you live in a bubble. The only reason there hasn't been another attack is because there hasn't been a need. As soon as there will be a need like if public support wavers completely for these wars, there will be another attack to remind us.

Pigshit.

Pigshit.

took awhile but the true motivation around here came out.

So it wasn't the US government that did 9/11, but it was Chevron or Shell. Sure.

This is what oil companies do - they take oil and sell it back to us. However, it's a lot easier for them to do when there isn't a war going on. And Afghanistan doesn't have any oil.

So now your pointing to yet more conspiracy theories to back up your conspiracy theory?

So you have no "documented revelations" about any of this, but yet you claim the US Government has caused it's own drug problems.

So now the US military is guarding the opium fields and is supplying opium to the US? Is the US shipping Opium to the US?

That's reaching a bit don't you think?

Making sure corporate powers remain invested in your government is one of any administration's jobs, sure. And you're not reading the thread of what we're discussing. I'm not assigning blame for 9/11. Regardless who's to blame, the government, the corporate multi-nationals, millitary and armament industries, many others all have a stake in the aggressive & preemptive policies of the neo-cons, and all certainly took advantage of the situation regardless of who instigated, facilitated or engendered 9/11.

I'll refer back to my "lynchpin country" argument as to the multiple apparent reasons for wanting to noose up the whole geographical/political scene over there, including Afghanistan.

As for the oil giants, if war guarantees that they won't have to make any deals or concessions with local entities or other foreign interests, then certainly they will take the temporary loss until the situation either stabilizes or control of the resources are in hands that can dole out the shares in a way that suits them.

Ten years later, and there are less and less US private firms in Iraq, and countries that had nothing to do with the invasion are now cashing in - oil, cement, telecom, you name it. The French, the Chinese, countries the US owes a lot of money to... could this be part of payback?

Obviously there's a consortium of national interests converging on the region, and we'll see how it works out.

Either way it's US forces guarding corporate resources out there in the deserts...


No, I was trying to draw a parallel between what we don't know now, and what we didn't know then in those other situations, which turned out to be conspiracy "truths" or whatever.

About the current situation we can only speculate based on past situations involving your rogues and government intelligence branch operations, which are no longer theories.

There have been multiple revelations about these "rogue" operations explicitly implicating (involving, not "implying involvement" btw) intelligence services and so on to the increased cocaine trafficking in the US. This is documented.

In comparing the current situation to previous US government services involvement with drug trafficking, drugs-for-guns exchanges, and so on, I don't think it's reaching at all. Past proven instances were in "the national interest" and "security operations" apparently that had "gone wrong", out of control, or rogue, just as the "Fast & Furious" debacle has proven to be "misguided" and all those other adjectives used when involvement has proven embarassing.

I wouldn't be surprised if US or Afghan troops were guarding poppy fields and such areas in the "national interest" or as security, and they do patrol these (rather than outright destroy them), yet all their efforts have translated to huge influxes of heroin to the European market, and re-infiltration of the north east North American distribution points.

It's connecting dots, currently, certainly, however they were predictable (which doesn't validate them yet) and are certain to grow or solidify if the right muckrackers talk to the right players...

So just in the interest of satisfying all those who want to pin-the-tail on the "culprit/s", the obvious argument is to follow the money and vault into speculation.

As to what happened on 9/11, we can't listen to the speculations and theories of the government, which refused and fought investigations, inquiries and commissions for as long as public outcry did not force their hand; and when they finally capitulated because their own "white papers" and "evidence" were not forthcoming, we were given partial testimonies, redacted reports and general white-wash re-iterations of the same speculations that emerged within 24hours of 9/11.

Anything that complemented their theory, nothing that allowed any airing of alternatives.

Iraq harbored Al Qaeda, had WMD's; now, we are told Iran can make nukes and will "wipe out Israel" against all proof to the contrary.

Same thing then, as now; only time will vindicate the theories for or against.

:D

Not all Jews are Zionists, not all Zionists are Jews, and if Israel was involved it certainly wasn't the only state concerned; and concerning recent revelations about previously "protected" Saudi Arabia, it would also apparently be the first time Israel and an Arab nation cooperated since the Afghan/Russian war.

With all the apparent ties to the Saudis, why aren't you ranting against Arabs, or rather Muslims, considering your insistence on assigning blame on "the Jews"?

:D

Man I love this stuff. I need to let the other Jews down at the Jewish World Control Headquarters see this one. They'll piss themselves! (We're getting together tomorrow night to write updates to our "How 0.25% Control the Other 99.75%" weekly newsletter and also meeting about next weeks Venezuela Takeover Yard Sale)


.:thumbsup


.

You should discuss about making the checks y'all get every month out from a non-Jewish bank, too...

Ooooh, that's right, there is no such thing :P

sigh...

:D

NIST said there was no evidence of explosives. NIST later admitted they didn't look for evidence of explosives. Their reason was that there were no "booms" and breaking windows like there would be with explosive demolitions.

They ignored or dismissed eyewitness testimony and video/audio of "booms" as well as the presence of molten metals, denying any knowledge of it (probably because they can't measure them or misrepresent these on the drawing boards).

They didn't mention incendiaries to my recollection, which are different from explosives, and would have caused the "rivers" of "molten lava" "like in a foundry" that were present beneath the wreckage for weeks and months after the events.

NIST doesn't have proof or much evidence for that matter for most of their analyses, being conjectural and based on technical drawings over which they must have pored to find some places or points that could support the fire-based or thermal expansion theory of collapse for WTC 7, the conclusion they had reached before their final "findings".

First because it's completely beyond the realm of possibility, statistics, logic or coincidence.

Second, because although the vast majority of architects and engineers are mum on the topic (presumably to protect their careers and reputations if they go against the popular beliefs), there has been no outcry over established structural and steel-construction engineering, there has been no revision of any building/construction codes or the basic physics of steel high-rise infrastructure assembly.

If what NIST is standing behind were true it would raise alarm bells and cause a temporary halt on most current high rise projects until findings and established methods and techniques could be reviewed and if necessary revised.

None of that happened. It appears as though engineers and others in the scientific and professional communities are letting NIST's tip-toe around the bushes slide.

That was the initial working theory, before any investigation. However "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=861610

NIST still claims their unlikely (and since independently refuted) theory of disproportionate collapse was due to office fires that somehow didn't run out of fuel for a consistent 7 hours.

First, "different speeds" contradicts your belief in the gravity-driven collapse. Second, you're right that all this debris was somehow ejected, against the force of gravity, hundreds of yards up and out at surrounding buildings - but that would also contradict your belief.

The other WTC buildings suffered more global structural damage than WTC 7. Some also burned more completely and were essentially gutted by fire. Since NIST already says damage was not sufficient for the collapse, that it was office fires, your argument is void. Debris from the first two buidings "contributed" to the fires. That is all.

Arguing about your beliefs is pointless, beliefs cannot be defended or rationally presented.

If zealots and fundamentalists "believe" that sacrificing their own or blowing themselves up in public markets is for the greater good, then you can't argue with them.

I've already said I won't argue about whodunnit. Obviously if it was an "inside" Government job, it was done by a cabal, not as commonly known procedure.

"There is little to gain" is blindly ignoring what has occurred since the War on Terror began.

"Impossible to keep a secret" is also naive. The Manhattan Project had 15,000 people keeping the secret. Operation Paperclip managed to hide up to 1000 Nazis in the US for 40 years before it was discovered.

Look up "compartmentalization".

WTC 7 didn't look like a classic demolition to you? Everyone else, even the Popular Mechanics "research" team, says it does (and then jumps through hoops to explain why it isn't).

Then there's the presence of particulates and evidence of incendiaries that have no business in building contruction, particularly "active" or unignited incendiaries themselves, found in the dust by independent sources.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/50...html#heading08

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=239769

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

There's also the USGS analysis and the insurance company investigations but I don't have those. I have to provide these links for you, but anyone should be seeing perfect-drop-down demolition style destruction with WTC 7, and obviously haven't noticed or believed what they saw when huge hunks of the towers were flying upward and out.

:D

You can't tell us who is to blame. All you can you do is point fingers. Somewhere along the line you have to have a conclusion, which you don't have.

Somewhere along the line, according to you, a group of people with both motive and means intentionally blew up the WTC (and then some). All you can say is "that doesn't look right".

So your saying the oil companies thought it would be a great idea to invade a country where their is no oil. Got it. Brilliant idea really.

So your saying we went to war so the French and the Chinese could sell Iraq cement and cell phones? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

I love it when you "speculate" about the "current situation". Your comparing a handful of rogues in the past who sold drugs to finance weapon deals to selling concrete in Iraq, both of which have nothing to do with 9/11.

So you followed the money and you came up with... what? A pipeline that hasn't been built, and selling concrete and cell phones in another country?

So now you've connected the dots all the way from 9/11 to Iran having WMDs. Yikes.

LOL, yeah it really did hey!! :helpme

Whatever, Pathfinder.

Facts are facts. I didn't write them. If you had 1/2 a brain not only would you not have faked your own death, but you'd know where to easily find these facts online so you wouldn't walk around with your head up your ass.

thats some decent old school jew bashing Jesus.

Like I said, I'm not pointing fingers or say who's to blame. I can use the follow the money argument and guess like anybody where the best modus lies, but I've completely admitted that it's conjecture.

All I can say is that the government story is hypothesis at best, that it looked wrong from the start, that like many others with more educated, forensic minds than me thought the same thing, and that there is evidence pointing to a very different and more credible hypothesis for the destruction of the towers than the government's office-fire theory.

I'm implying the oil companies may not even know about the subterfuge or underlying motives for government or associated bodies to invoke political actions such as wars, buy that they would care less as long as their bottom line is embellished.

I'm flatly stating that corporations such as oil conglomerates have exerted pressure on the government for regime change in foreign countries that would help them. Such as? The United Fruit Company and the US staging a government overthrow in Guatemala - ostensibly to protect the "free world" from Communism, but in reality keeping the company's slave labor and overall costs down.

Obviously not, at least not directly. The spoils are divided according to debts and obligations incurred by the conquering country - it's as old as Alexander the Great and Carolus Magnus.

Well, nothing obviously, but ask George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Zbigniew Brzezinsk and the people in government who claimed there was proof Sadam supported AL Qaeda ( when in fact they were sworn enemies ).

You're not quite getting it. Though there can be parallels made, essentially what I'm saying is circumstantial evidence now points to the type of congruence of motives and opportunities which in the past circumstantial evidence cases were proven to be correct.

Selling concrete in Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11, since the country was invaded preemptively when there was no threat to national security, and once the availability was there, contracts for exploitation to external companies and nations were granted on some basis we're not aware of. At first it was trsns-national oil interests, then it grew to virtually every part of the infrastructure. Apparently blind bidding was not involved, but the countries awarded contracts were those the US had some form of obligation toward.

I didn't mention the pipeline as anything as one of possible motives and potential future interests. I threw that out without stipulating any direct links or direct cause - and I plainly stated that there were many possible motives and possibly a group of cui bonos that all converged on the same single event/s - invading, conquering and exploiting under the guise of removing WMDs and catching Ben Laden or his supporters, both of which were outright lies in the case of Iraq.

Didn't say anything about Iran having WMDS, but when WMDs weren't enough for invading Iraq, Ben Laden was invoked; false reasons were provided to cause panic and fear and support for a bullshit war; the same thing can be seen happening with Iran, without connecting it directly to 9/11, it's just a parallel set of false motivating factors....

:D

Mediaguy, we're on page 16 now. Maybe it's time you show us some kind of evidence that the US government was behind this attack. The same question to your fellow nutjobs.

One thing that is useful when trying to understand such a complex topic, is to head right to the top of the system, to the root. I understand why some people feel this is a Jewish attack, but if we zoom out further it's more that Israelis (Religious Jews, Ethnic Jews and Atheist Jews) were convenient to use for this job, if any other nation had been more suited then they would have been picked instead.

At the top of the Western system is The House of Rothschild and the British Crown. The USA is a corporation that belongs to them, they use it as a giant war machine (The Special Relationship). The Rothschilds fund The Rockefellers, who were originally used to control oil (Standard Oil), during WWII they were used to fund the Nazis and today they are in control of the United Nations and CFR (and a lot more too). Israel is a country that was setup by and belongs to the House of Rothschild. The 9/11 attacks would not happen without the go ahead of the House of Rothschild. They would delegate control of the project.

A decision was made at the top to expand the Western controlled empire. They had to mobilize their War Machine (the USA); increase military tax spending, get people behind the war etc. This was the purpose of 9/11; a catalyst to oil the wheels of war. Who to use to set it up? Americans not so good i.e. loyalty. British not so good either, it would be hard to convince them they are helping the future of their country. Ideally one wants English speaking who will fit in in the US, and they should be people who you can convince that they're doing something to help their country. This is why Israelis were used, but it was the people at the top who made that decision, they could have chosen various other nationalities if they had wished. :2 cents:

who was flying the planes wehateporn?

There was nobody on-board

You are insane

tell that to the family members who lost their loved ones onboard.

I worked in the airlines for years, any idea how many people are involved in getting a flight in the air.

http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/fligh...passengers.htm

I'm sure some would think that, definitions are insanity change throughout the decades. In 1876 most of us here today would be considered insane.

"The leading cause of insanity among the male patients was masturbation, according to the annual report of 1876."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Lunatic_Asylum

Some of the 'hijackers' have since been found alive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm

Those flights did take off, but different planes hit the buildings.

These idiots don't care about facts like that. They live in a insane fantasyworld where they simply ignore problems like you just mentioned.