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.

 

A question for 9/11 Conspiracy believers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I have been over alot of different 9/11 Conspiracies and they have been some doozies. Many requiring a secret cabal of powerful men and then hundreds if not thousands of people all being in on it to one extent or another. For example remember one of the first 9/11 conspiracies the "Jews were warned" one


But my question stems for the "why" of these 9/11 conspiracies. Most often the answer I get for why is so the US would be justified in the publics eyes in invading Oil rich Iraq. Afghanistan in the resource department is a undeveloped dirt ball compared to Iraq so thats rarely the answer to why I guess.

So heres my question

Where was this uber powerful secret cabal when no WMDs in Iraq showed up? Planting a few WMDs would have been childs play compared to most of these 9/11 Conspiracies. It would have justified the whole basis of invasion in most of the publics eyes. No WMDs found and Public opinion of the war plummeted, peoples trust in US intel shattered.

Im not buying any excuse like they wouldnt care about justifying the invasion once their in Iraq because public opinion is just as important long into the war as at he start of it, just look at Vietnam for proof of this. No WMDs in Iraq is also a blow to any future military action as US intel will always be in question now.

It would have been so easy to plant WMDs for some secret shadow goverement cabal. The US has thousands of WMDs of all types and the ablity to make just about any type. A small SF team could have been sent in to plant them keeping the people in the know to a very minimum.

Did these evil masterminds of the 9/11 Conspiracies fall asleep on the Job or something?
I never get a satisfactory answer to this.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Hi Shadow,

I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but I cannot answer your question. I could say that the WMD question is all a massive red herring...I don't know really. If I did then I would probably be dead by now!!!

The whole 9/11 issue seems to have polarised people quite dramatically and all sides seem to stick to their positions regardless of the amount of discussion. Maybe that just shows how in the dark the hoi polloi really are!!



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I try to keep a open mind about all Conspiracies, just not so open my brains fall out
. Some 9/11 theories do raise some interesting questions.

When I try to think about them or any conspiracy I like to put my self in the shoes of the reported people behind it to think What would I do and why would I be doing this. When I do this for the 9/11 theories I always get to the point of the Iraq WMDs and I get lost.

Making sure WMDs were found at any cost seems only natural and a very important next move in my view.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Do you really think that you are the first one to ask this blatant logical fallacy of a question?

First you need to incorrectly assume that 9/11 was primarily about the Iraq war and next you need to incorrectly assume that it would be easy to plant wmd's in iraq during post war chaos.

Cheney came out days after 9/11 claiming this would be a PERMANENT GLOBAL war.

read this......


The smoke was still rising from the rubble of the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon when the unanimous and universal cry erupted in government circles, and was relentlessly amplified by the media, that this was "war, " not a criminal act of terrorism. How very convenient that this war, declared against a diffuse and stateless entity, would trigger long-sought legal authorities and constitutional loopholes which would not apply in the case of a criminal act. [5] Torture, domestic spying, selective suspension of habeas corpus, all the unconstitutional monsters whose implications are only clear four years after the event, all slipped into immediate usage with the rhetorical invocation of war.

This was not merely war, it was unlimited war, both in the sense of total war meant by General Ludendorff (civilian rights being trivial), and in the sense of lacking a comprehensible time span. "A war that will not end in our lifetimes, " said Vice President Cheney on Meet the Press on the very Sunday following the attacks. How could he be so sure during the fog of uncertainty following the strike?

If bin Laden and his followers were merely a limited number of fanatics living in Afghan caves, as we were assured at the time, why did the Bush administration relentlessly advance the meme that a decades-long war was inevitable? Could not a concerted intelligence, law-enforcement, and diplomatic campaign, embracing all sovereign countries, have effectively shut down "al Qaeda" within a reasonable period of time--say, within the period it took to fight World War II between Pearl Harbor and the Japanese surrender?

Four years on, Vice President Cheney, doing a plausible imitation of the radio voice of The Shadow, continues to publicly mutter, in menacing tones of the lower octaves, that the war on terrorism [6] is a conflict that will last for decades. [7] This at the same time as the junior partner of the ruling dyarchy, the sitting president, is giving upbeat speeches promising victory in the war on terrorism (i.e., Iraq, the Central Front on the War on Terrorism) against a papier maché backdrop containing the printed slogan "Strategy for Victory."

It is curious that no one--not the watchdogs of the supposedly adversary media, nor the nominal opposition party in Washington, nor otherwise intelligent observers--has remarked on this seeming contradiction: victory is just around the corner, yet the war will last for decades. Quite in the manner of the war between Eastasia and Oceania in 1984.

In earlier times, this contradiction would have seemed newsworthy, if not scandalous. Suppose President Roosevelt had opined at the Teheran Conference that the Axis would be defeated in two years. Then suppose his vice president had at the same time traveled about the United States telling his audiences that the Axis would not be defeated for decades. An American public not yet conditioned by television would at least have noticed, and demanded some explanation.

So question number 4 concludes with a question: why does the U.S. government hive so firmly to the notion of a long, drawn-out, indeterminate war, when Occam's Razor would suggest the desirability of presenting a clear-cut victory within the span of imagination of the average impatient American--a couple of years at most? Or is endless war the point?





Furthermore..................with 9/11 they had all the time, all the resources, technology, and all the access that they needed right in their own backyard.

They don't have any of those luxuries in Iraq.

Plus bottom line it is just not necessary. They already ousted saddam, occupied the territory and installed a puppet goverment while dolling out MASSIVE sweetheart deals to all their cronies. There is no reason to risk blowing it when their goals in that one country have been accomplished.

There are a lot more plans in the works.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Making sure WMDs were found at any cost seems only natural and a very important next move in my view.

You would think so wouldn't you. You never know though, we might find some yet...unless of course they are in Syria...here we go, now my head hurts.

It is really hard to try and decipher whats going on. Regarding WMD...as I said, it could be a red herring, in which case the guys pulling the strings are very clever/bold, or the whole thing is simply something that started off small somewhere and just snowballed and the administrations involved used it to sway pulic opinion.

It's strange how Iraqi WMD seems to have been swept under the carpet at the moment.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
First you need to incorrectly assume that 9/11 was primarily about the Iraq war and next you need to incorrectly assume that it would be easy to plant wmd's in iraq during post war chaos.

You beat me to it. Its funny how time and events can cause unconscious connections to be made/retained.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Plans for Iraq attack began on 9/11 (note this story was posted in 2002 BEFORE the invasion of Iraq and while WMD inspections were supposedly being pursued by the US) These notes have recently been confirmed to exist under the FOIA.

Iraq is about oil and destabilising the mid east not anything else. 9/11 was the perfect excuse of invading Afghanistan, Iraq and who's left in the middle... oh another oil rich nation...



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Furthermore..................with 9/11 they had all the time, all the resources, technology, and all the access that they needed right in their own backyard.

They don't have any of those luxuries in Iraq.



Your forgetting that they would need a fraction of the 9/11 resources or time to plant a WMD. A single C-130 and Truck and a SF team and you would be all set.

This would not be hard to do in any way especially for a group that could pull off a any of these 9/11 conspiracies.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Shadow,

I am presuming that you are not a 9/11 conspiracy advocate...have you considered that the WMD question was just a massive outright lie and by the time the troops were in there was no need to plant any evidence? As we have seen, the issue is now somewhat on the back burner.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Im not a advocate of either side of 9/11 but for this thread I going along with the conspiracy view point thus assuming the WMDs was a outright lie.

But still thats a important factor to the war we are still in since its the entire basis for it, and its not "not necessary" as some people claim. Public support without the WMDs crashed and keeps getting lower all the time. If it gets low enough a rerun of Vietnam can easily happen and the US pulls out due to public pressure.

The notion that a group could pull off a plot like 9/11 and then not have the resources to plant a single WMD like Jack Tripper suggested is just absurb. First this group is uber powerful then they cant even transfer a few cans of chemical weapons to a area recieving tons of cargo every day.

Come on


KhieuSamphan at least you raised a valid point about future action in a country like Syria saying the WMDs were transfered to that country. That atleast can make some sense.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
You can't just plant a WMD in some old dudes house and say it was Saddam's. You have to prove who's weapon it is and how it got there, they didn't have enough resources in Iraq to get away with it. You would want to find the WMD's at some military base or some other significant place. You could also argue that they thought Saddam had to have some even if the CIA said he didn't.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Your forgetting that they would need a fraction of the 9/11 resources or time to plant a WMD. A single C-130 and Truck and a SF team and you would be all set.

This would not be hard to do in any way especially for a group that could pull off a any of these 9/11 conspiracies.


You are just sounding silly.

As if you know anything about what it would take to pull it off.

It is a logical fallacy to claim the two issues are related in any way.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
In any event, the neocons abandoned WMD for the 'bad man' excuse and later for the 'bringing democracy to the people' excuse.

The WMD story (mushroom clouds and all) had one purpose and one purpose only, to get us into Iraq. It worked. After that they didn't care. Why? Because they knew that the dem's and others would fall into line because the ONE RULE of politics made clear when Abe Lincoln was a congressman and went against the Mexican-American war is that you do not oppose a sitting president during wartime. Period.

Hell, even Howard Dean is for staying the course. We're there now and they know they have us by the short-hairs. The only reason we pulled out of Nam is that the media published the gory details including returning caskets, etc. They've taken care of that problem as they control the media completely. They've even shot dead the majority of journalists in Iraq who weren't embedded (in bed with) the military. They've even bombed al Jazeera.

They no longer need WMD man. Can you dig it?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
You can't just plant a WMD in some old dudes house and say it was Saddam's.


Of course you wouldnt plant them in some dudes house you would plant them in any number of Saddams Iraq military bases or bunkers the ones the US now has access too which is pretty much all of them.

All you would need is drums filled with chemical weapons which the US has tons of. Small amounts of this stuff even nuclear material goes "missing" all the time. Then you would just need to ship it to Iraq which is not hard with the amount of cargo going there.

Then you would just need a military SF or CIA covert team in on the plot to plant the stuff in some Iraq base and let the regular soldiers find it. Bingo WMD found at one of Saddams military bases.

Only a small amount of people need be in the know the pilots for example that ship it to Iraq need not even know what they are shipping the military does stuff like that all the time.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are just sounding silly.

Jack Tripper you know whats silly that you think a group could pull of 9/11 and not have the resourses to plant some WMDs in a country they now control
Talk about silly.

Im not buying this the military controls the media stuff either seattlelaw. The vast majority of the news comming out of Iraq is horrible stuff the military would never want out example Abu Ghraib. You hardly ever hear any good news from Iraq in the US media.

Then theres the fact thats theres a global media covering Iraq its Absurb to suggest they would control it all.

Most of the Media hates Bush and would love to see him fail in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I can't go into exactly what I think of 9/11 here. The question also presupposes a link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. I do think a lot of the conspiracy theories are poorly thought out at best, but, that said, and assuming invading Iraq figured into the same plan that incorporated 9/11...

What does it matter if there were WMDs or not? I mean, did it stop us from going into Iraq either way? Sure, it made the administration look bad, but they went ahead and did it anyway.. even with the UN and some US intelligence agencies saying there were no WMDs.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
A) There was absolutely no need to plant WMDs, because people had stopped caring about three re-justifications for the war later. The media works great for things like this.

To contrast, we would most likely not be able to invade Afghanistan or any other countries without a catalyzing event, a "new Pearl Harbor," as PNAC put it, which was 9/11.

B) A WMD search in Iraq and subsequent reports (ie, Duelfer Report) and potential investigations would all be international (UN) investigations. We weren't the only ones looking, and outside of the US, I'm sorry to say that, contrary to popular belief, it seems everyone pretty much knew they didn't have squat. We (the UN) knew when Iraq cleverly brought in long-range missiles against sanctions, and we (the UN) made them get rid of them.

The just Duelfer Report reinforced popular opinion that Saddam had intentions of making WMDs after sanctions were lifted, which was probably the sentiment of most of the UN even pre-war; nobody bought Powell's presentations. I think he went on to later comment that he felt embarrassed presenting his case before the UN. After sanctions, it would be perfectly legal for Iraq to go after WMDs. So coming up with WMDs would be pretty risky, considering it could potentially result in an international and therefore less-controllable scandal, whereas it would also be completely unnecessary (see point A).

C) The argument that 9/11 could not have been staged because we did not plant WMDs is non sequitur and not a very strong, logical argument.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
This "If can 9-11, why no plant WMD" argument has been raised and debated several times already in the past on ATS. Here's one recent example by Catherder of "A 757 Hit The Pentagon" fame:

Does it make sense to you...?

There is obviously some website out there which is touting this logical fallacy as an "unblockable blow" for use in 9-11 debate, and every supporter of the official story who reads it rushes back to ATS to post it ASAP.

Would the author of this latest incarnation be so kind as to provide a link to the website where he/she originally saw this argument propagated, so that we may review and perhaps answer it at the source?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Well if 9-11 was created to garner public support for the war its quite clear its very important to this cabal. It should be just as important years into the war as it is at the start.If public support drops enough you could very well see another Vietnam pull out. No WMDs massive blow to public opinion and rising death toll chips away at whatever is left.

If we pulled out in say 2 years because public support went in the crapper with massive protest and such. Then their whole secret plot was for naught. They then wont be in control of anything just like Vietnam.

Plus the public will always be skeptical of any future actions of this type based on US intel as it was a huge blow for their credibility.

Public support throughout the duration of the war is very important. And planting WMDs would have been so easy compared to these 9-11 plots and have been a massive public opinion win for their side. I remember during the election when it was close between Kerry and Bush alot of people thinking the WMDs were going to show up just in time to give Bush a huge boost but that never happened.

So far KhieuSamphan has given me the best answer with his theory of the WMDs will at a later date be proven to have been shipped to a country like Sryia which could be the spark to a future invasion even though such intel will be meet with much skepticism thanks to the no show of Iraq WMDs it might work. Only time will tell for such a theory though.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


Then you would just need a military SF or CIA covert team in on the plot to plant the stuff in some Iraq base and let the regular soldiers find it. Bingo WMD found at one of Saddams military bases.

Only a small amount of people need be in the know the pilots for example that ship it to Iraq need not even know what they are shipping the military does stuff like that all the time.


Absurd. None of these claims are based on any facts or authoritative knowledge. You are purely making this nonsense up without having a clue of what you are talking about.




Jack Tripper you know whats silly that you think a group could pull of 9/11 and not have the resourses to plant some WMDs in a country they now control Talk about silly.


Except that I never said that. I said that they had no operative reason to risk it and there is no reason to think it would be "easy" just because YOU say so.




Im not buying this the military controls the media stuff either seattlelaw. The vast majority of the news comming out of Iraq is horrible stuff the military would never want out example Abu Ghraib. You hardly ever hear any good news from Iraq in the US media.

Then theres the fact thats theres a global media covering Iraq its Absurb to suggest they would control it all.

Most of the Media hates Bush and would love to see him fail in Iraq.



We are failing in Iraq so it has to get reported. Nobody said the "military" controls the media.



But yes the media is owned by a handful of mega corporations. Six to be exact. Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, Viacom. and GE.


source

What is "absurd" is to think that these corporations aren't manipulated by the government.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well if 9-11 was created to garner public support for the war its quite clear its very important to this cabal. It should be just as important years into the war as it is at the start.If public support drops enough you could very well see another Vietnam pull out. No WMDs massive blow to public opinion and rising death toll chips away at whatever is left.




I see your point, but I think it's a big if. If 9-11 was created to garner support for the war, why not have filled the planes with Iraqis instead of Saudis? I understand you were probably just referring to the "9-11 was done in order to create support for the war in Iraq" conspiracy theory, but that's not the only theory surrounding 9-11, so it doesn't prove that there was no conspiracy per se.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by koji_K]

[edit on 23-2-2006 by koji_K]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join