It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 unlike other terrorist attacks. Why?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I'm not really up with the whole involvement with Al Qaeda and the CIA but from what I have gathered is that the CIA helped Bin laden back before Al Qaeda in Afganistan. Thus, there is a connection between the 2. So, just because someone is connected to someone else, doesn't neccessarily mean they are connected in action also. Just because you can connect the dots from the 93 bombing to Al Qaeda doesn't mean they are responsible. Just like you can connect the dots with Al Qaeda and the CIA. Doesn't mean the CIA was involved in the 93 bombing either. That's the point I'm trying to make.




posted on May, 12 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
ok well in ref. to afghanistan

you have heard myths
id like to reference you to Peter Bergen, hes met with Osama on various occasions, a critic of the Iraq war, and is well educated in the realm of Islamic Radicalism. just a background on him


anyway
i read his book a few years back and he discussed the myths of CIA training bin laden, or giving him money

id like to link you to an article he wrote

www.tpmcafe.com...

in it he discusses how the CIA did in fact fund parts of the mujahideen, using billions, but through a middle man, namely the Pakistani ISI. he goes onto discuss the myths of CIA operating on the ground in afghanistan, and myths of training, etc etc.

and again he is a well respected terrorism EXPERT. people call him an analyst but thats underestimating him.

the cia did throw money into afghanistan, but not in the way everyone thinks.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
If you think Al Qaeda is responsible for hijacking and crashing the planes on 911, then are they also responsible for rigging the twin towers with strategically placed explosives to enable two virtualy identical controlled demolishions to take place shortly after?


[edit on 12-5-2006 by point]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
who said anything was rigged?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
who said anything was rigged?


Didn't I just mention it in the post above yours?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
9/11 is unlike any attack in history. A peace time attack using civilians and commercial aircraft to kill thousands and cause record devestation.

However, it does not mean that the perps of 9/11 did not committ 3/11 or 7/7, or Jakarta, Bali, ect ect ect. Who those perps are we can debate for a long time.

One reason could be is that 3/11 and 7/7 were committed after 9/11, and thus, security measures and international alerts would make using planes in those methods virtually impossible. Before 9/11, airport and airline security was in a relative lull, so it was much easier to pull it off then than it was afterwords.

For the materials that were used and the number of people involved, 3/11 and 7/7 were equally devastating. Look how many died in Madrid with just a few bombs placed here and there. In London, the only reason it wasnt worse was because the London underground was pretty well built.

I am not doubtful that all three terror attacks were committed or allowed and nurtured by the same people. A mix of Al-Qaeda and Government resources.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
although i dont agree with your last postulate about govt al-qaeda cooperation...
i do agree with your point about pre security and post security.

very good point



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
although i dont agree with your last postulate about govt al-qaeda cooperation...
i do agree with your point about pre security and post security.

very good point


Thats fine. I do not mind differing opinions on the subject, since even my own theories tend to differ from alot of 9/11 conspiracy researchers.

Although I believe that there was considerable government involvement behind 9/11, I tend to base it on more established facts and more legit sources than most.

My theory of government/al qaeda cooperation is just in theory right now, as the actual participants in 9/11 I still do not have any solid answers to, other than my conclusion that certain persons and entities within the government were involved. beyond that, at this point, its speculation on possible co-conspritors.

As far as U.S, government or allied government involvement in the other attacks, I tend to think that 7/7 had british government involvement, while 3/11 could have been a straight forward al-qaeda attack.

I do not believe that attacks must be identically carried out to be by the same perp. terrorists can be very flexible in their methods.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
One of the influencing factors behind my belief that the government played a major part in the September 11 attacks is the benefits received as a result. A huge perk was getting another opportunity to go after Saddam Hussein, despite the lack of correlation between him and the attacks.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Umm...

The FBI was involved in 1993 WTC attack. Their informant got a recorded admission of FBI involvement.

Dick Cheney said that investigating 9/11 would hinder the war on terrorism.
Tony Blair said that investigating 7/7 would hinder the war on terrorism.
The Spanish group who ended up investigating the Madrid bombings ended up destroying all their files on it.

I guess Al Qaeda made them do all this too, eh...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Perhaps Al-Quaeda has not had any invlovement in any of the terrorist attacks mentioned. It is unlikely, but the government may have been the sole party behind the lot of them?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join