For those who buy into the OS of 9/11

a reply to: intrptr

Get a grip intrptr a terrorist action like this makes it easy to push forward what they wanted to do. it doesn't make it a false flag because like I said the US government would not have risked killing foreign nationals of which there were many in this event.

What the terrorists did made it easy to justify going into Iraq.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking...?

If someone creates a thread, why wouldn't people on either side comment on it?

For my part, I believe the official story as a starting point. I do believe that in the aftermath a LOT was covered up (maybe others involved, additional backers, etc). I will also admit that even though I believe a plane hit the Pentagon... WOW! Talk about a one in a million shot! The crash site in PA also seemed odd to me, but really, what do I know about what a crash site "should" look like.

There was also so much inaccurate/fake info flying around that day. I remember people in my office saying that a car bomb went off outside the State Department building. All sorts of stuff.

I remembered hearing that two Middle-Eastern men were arrested on an Amtrak train with some box-cutters and a whole lot of cast. Never heard anything about that ever again.

a reply to: wmd_2008

What the terrorists did made it easy to justify going into Iraq.

No it didn't. The lies they told after 911 about WMD, Saddams supposed involvement, Aluminum tubes, yellow cake, little vials of anthrax held up in the UN and mobile bio weapons labs were all just a few of the "excuses" added to embellish the need to invade. Of course we all saw this, too…

a reply to: intrptr

The lies they told after 911 about WMD, Saddams supposed involvement, Aluminum tubes, yellow cake, little vials of anthrax held up in the UN and mobile bio weapons labs were all just a few of the "excuses" added to embellish the need to invade. Of course we all saw this, too…

Considering that Saddam violated a number of UN resolutions after the Gulf War, there was no need to use Iraq's WMD as an excuse. Check it out.

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions.


UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

* Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

* Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

* Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14

You break a contract, you pay the price.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Considering that Saddam violated a number of UN resolutions after the Gulf War, there was no need to use Iraq's WMD as an excuse. Check it out.

The US has since violated way more UN resolutions than Saddam ever did and in multiple countries there.

Blaming the victims?

a reply to: intrptr

The US has since violated way more UN resolutions than Saddam ever did and in multiple countries there.

Looking at the facts, the United States was not the country that the UN focused on and agreed to adhere to in regard to the UN resolutions, which actually were aimed at Saddam Hussein. How many countries were involved in kicking Iraq out of Kuwait? Let's not forget the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds.

Blaming the victims?

So now, Saddam was the victim in your eyes when in fact, WMD was eventually found in the years after the first Gulf War. Saddam broke the agreements and he paid the price and I might add that it was not the United States that concocted that WMD story, it was an Iraqi.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's not forget the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds.

We sold them (the Iraqis) the chemicals. The US is bombing Kurds right now.

Tired of this…. again. Hold the double standard up to someone else.

a reply to: intrptr

So, you are saying that because we sold the Iraqis items that they needed for their agricultural/livestock programs, we are responsible for the Iraqis perverting those items into weapons? Is that what you are saying or is it you do not understand where chemical weapons come from (pesticides)? Oh, and then there is Anthrax. Which, can be used to create a vaccine where there are a lot of sheep....which the Middle East has...OR is can be used to create a weapon..

a reply to: intrptr

We sold them (the Iraqis) the chemicals. The US is bombing Kurds right now.

You need to get you facts together. ISIS and Turkey have been attacking the Kurds, not the United States.

Secondly,let's take a look at the rest of the story.

As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.

One of the contributions was a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company; the plant was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas.[4] The guarantees led to UK government payment of £300,000 to Uhde in 1990 after completion of the plant was interrupted by the first Gulf War.[4] In 1994 and 1996 three people were convicted in Germany of export offenses.

France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. Austria also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

The United States did not supply Iraq with chemical weapon munitions as you incorrectly implied.

a reply to: skyeagle409

ISIS and Turkey have been attacking the Kurds, not the United States.

Turkey is NATO. They do whatever Command tells them too.

But hide (like you) behind Proxy to disguise intent. Just like the Kingdom of Saud is doing in Yemen, and Kiev in "Eastern" Ukraine.

Puppet governments, like minions on websites, serve to fool people that are being subjugated.

(pssst, its not working). The only fools that fool themselves and others are the conquerors.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: intrptr

So, you are saying that because we sold the Iraqis items that they needed for their agricultural/livestock programs, we are responsible for the Iraqis perverting those items into weapons? Is that what you are saying or is it you do not understand where chemical weapons come from (pesticides)? Oh, and then there is Anthrax. Which, can be used to create a vaccine where there are a lot of sheep....which the Middle East has...OR is can be used to create a weapon..

Oh my me.

Reading this post all I could think of was Bill Hicks on Iraqi Weapon Conversion

We sold Iraq “farming equipment” which Iraq then “converted”.
How do they do this?
“Simsalabim simsalabim aa salabim sim sim sim salabim.”
Wow! It was a chicken coop, it’s now a nuclear reactor!”
“This war’s for Aladdin.”

It's from 1994. This is hardly news.

a reply to: intrptr

Turkey is NATO. They do whatever Command tells them too.

And, Turkey, not the United States, was the country that attacked the Kurds.

(pssst, its not working). The only fools that fool themselves and others are the conquerors.

The United States has pulled out its combat troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it was the United States, along with other countries, that ejected Iraq out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iraq invaded Iran and Saddam had warned its Gulf State neighbors to either forgive his Iranian war debts or else. How many Kuwaitis were slaughtered by Iraq as the build-up to eject Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, continued?

In addition to gassing the Kurds, Saddam fired missiles into Israel and let's not forget Saddam's super gun.

I can see where this is going. You want to argue that those who post faithfully in support of the OS hardly missing a week year in and year out are paid by the letter to post with money coming from those who want to prop up the OS.

I believe there is a fair simpler explanation. They are probably unemployed with internet access or still in school procrastinating here.

Anyway do not look at the messenger, look at the argument. Does it hold water? If you care about the truth and an argument destroys a theory you have then you care about that theory you had not about the truth. But so far so good, or so bad for the supporters of the OS.

originally posted by: anticitizen
why are non-conspiracy theorists on a conspiracy forum anyway?

some know-it-alls obviously just get high on making fun of and exposing conspiracy theorists. they feel strong with MSM and and the majority behind them.

Well guess what there is NOT just one forum on here is there, it's that kind of lack of thought that makes people fall for conspirices, if you have a background in construction especially STRUCTURAL STEELWORK then you can understand what happened.

There are 100,000'S of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS around the world, due to my job I talk to Structural Engineers on a regular basis and never heard one claim inside job / or demolition.

Building codes and regulations were changed after the events of 9/11 with greater emphasis of fire protection and getting people out of buildings quicker.

I will refer you all to this. After the events of 9/11 Arup Structural Engineerings did a paper on the implications of fire on structural steel buildings here is a REALLY IMPORTANT note,

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for

Thermal induced forces are what the steel is subjected to in a fire if not correctly fire protected.

No one on either side can know the TRUE extent of the damage buy the aircraft and the resulting fires but as office and home fires can EASILY reach temperatures that can cause a reduction in strength and therefore load capicity of the structure what we saw needs no other outside influence.