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.

 

Bombs in the WTC? Why not the terrorists?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
uhhh.. nice try but

i think what im tryuing to establish is that the guy isnt some bush admin sucker

and he certainly is more knowledgable on the subject than you are.


read the article, please. you obviously didnt. but then again he must be some disinfo agent put out there by the CIA.

once youve met the man and done your time in that area of the world come back and talk to me. then you can turn and mock the guy. until then, keep prodding away at the usual stuff.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by blatantblue]


oh and, no one said you had to shut up and listen to him.

you are obviously not the communication monster you claim to be


goodnight


[edit on 22-5-2006 by blatantblue]




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
So how does this man's experiences and opinions prove that the CIA hasn't been recruiting Islamofascists? I mean, I understand he has opinions and all, and has talked to Osama a few times, but without reading through his work, what specifically does he offer to show us what he's talking about?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
ill get to that in the morning, bsbray, ill go fetch his book.

called Holy War, Inc. if youre interested in looking it up in the meantime


ttys



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
uhhh.. nice try but

i think what im tryuing to establish is that the guy isnt some bush admin sucker

and he certainly is more knowledgable on the subject than you are.


read the article, please. you obviously didnt. but then again he must be some disinfo agent put out there by the CIA.


Hello, *EDIT!*. Read some History, please. It's no secret the CIA backed Middle Eastern militants against the Soviets back in the 80's.


BBC NEWS

Afghanistan example

The most obvious example of support for one side going wrong was in Afghanistan itself.

In the 1980s the CIA joined Saudi Arabia in backing Islamic militants fighting to expel occupying troops of the Soviet Union.

The motive was the battle against communism.



Osama Bin Laden turned against the US

The Russians eventually pulled out. Their defeat contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But the war also gave a boost to a variety of puritanical Islam that emerged from religious schools in Pakistan and took power in Kabul in 1996 in the form of the extremist Taleban.

In the meantime, Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi-born militant who had fought in Afghanistan and benefited from American support, had turned against the United States.


That's the jist of it for you, as you seem to be missing a recent decade for some reason.



Originally posted by blatantblue
once youve met the man and done your time in that area of the world come back and talk to me. then you can turn and mock the guy. until then, keep prodding away at the usual stuff.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by blatantblue]


So what's he saying, he met Bin Laden, and bin Laden told him he had nothing to do with the CIA? If that's the case here, are you saying you trust the word of a man you claimed planned the crashing of airliners into american buildings, killing loads of people?





Originally posted by blatantblue
goodnight



Yeah, Goodnight.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Peace with you too, sorry but 9/11 gets my blood boiling. I thought before 9/11 nothing would make me cry again, that day I cried in my wife arms like a baby...


So you were there?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
What I still don't understand is...

IF the US government did this (which I seriously don't believe) WHY would they go to the extent of risking exposure by planting bombs in the buildings?

I mean... IF they hit the pentagon, don't you think they would think about witnesses and rather than fire a missile at it, they would hi-jack a jet of their own?

And wouldn't it be a good enough reason to go to war without risking maximum exposure by demolishing the buildings?

The logic doesn't fit the theory. There is more unexplained in the conspiracy theories than in the official line of events and that is why these theories aren't all over the news etc etc. They have no 100% credible evidence. Just a series of coincidences and possible events leading to nothing.

Sorry but I had to say it.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I've only gotten to the second page of this thread but, I'd like to give my theory of why the terrorists didn't plant the bombs. I know, I'm going against what I was speculating in the first page. If the terrorists did plant the bombs, they would have blown the towers immediately after impact for the most casualties. Wouldn't it make sense for them to kill as many people as possible since that was their main objective? So, right there disproves the terrorists planting bombs senerio IMO.

Edit: Wouldn't you know it, the next post I read in this thread stated the same thing. Maybe I should start reading the entire thread before posting? Doh!!!

[edit on 5/23/2006 by Griff]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
communication master, youve once again proven you arent one!

i never said the CIA had no involvement in Afghanistan, neither did Peter Bergen in his article. we are both saying the CIA not train Bin Laden, or directly provide him with funds. If you read his article, or his book Holy War Inc, you read how the CIA funneled money through the Pakistani ISI.

the article you cite says nothing about training, or HOW he benefitted from American support. everyone benefitted from the billions of dollars and the arms the CIA poured into afghanistan via Pakistani ISI.

you have to understand the difference between who was fighting. you had the mujahideen warriors, which contained two groups:
the afghans
and the afghan arabs.

we didnt fun afghan arabs, guys from other countries. the ones we focused on were the Afghans themselves.


you should look up Ayman al Zawahiris book, Knights Under the Prophets Banner, where he writes the CIA was not involved with Afghan Arabs.
www.faqs.org...

somewebsites say we trained Afghans....but DAMN im running short on finding a source that discusses us training osama bin laden and the afghan ARABS.


www.globalresearch.ca...

scroll to "Pakistani Intelligence Apparatus."


some say we've trained Afghans. but no one ive found so far says we trained Afghan ARABS (osama, ayman, etc, etc, etc.)


the Afghan Arabs were of no use to us. they were not indigenous and did not understand the terrain and land like the Afghans themselves did.
tens of thousands of Afghan Arabs went to Afghanistan to join HUNDREDS of thousands of willing Afghan natives. The Afghan Arabs were not necessary to train nor fund.

www.frontpagemag.com...

although used for politics, the facts remain the same in there as well.




im thinking that maybe the CIA didnt train afghan arabs, or osama, or ayman al zawahiri.
im beginning to think a lot of myths have been perpetuated since then

ive said what i have to say. peace

[edit on 23-5-2006 by blatantblue]

[edit on 23-5-2006 by blatantblue]

[edit on 23-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
ANOK really had a great point.

I never thought about it, but this does seem like a distraction thread. Look at the posts that are accumulating.

You gotta love it, though. The federal govt must really be dumb. They didn't learn from WTC 1 OR from OKC how to stop people from walking in with boxes of explosives and bombing a building.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
communication master, youve once again proven you arent one!

i never said the CIA had no involvement in Afghanistan, neither did Peter Bergen in his article. we are both saying the CIA not train Bin Laden, or directly provide him with funds. If you read his article, or his book Holy War Inc, you read how the CIA funneled money through the Pakistani ISI.

the article you cite says nothing about training, or HOW he benefitted from American support. everyone benefitted from the billions of dollars and the arms the CIA poured into afghanistan via Pakistani ISI.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by blatantblue]


Oh no you don't! You said it right here!


Originally posted by blatantblue
Peter Bergen, whos met with Osama bin Laden, 3 times (something like that), an iraq war critic, writes in his book how the CIA had no involvement with osama and his cabal.


You didn't say a damned word about training, so don't try and twist this about. You said 'the CIA had no involvement with osama and his cabal', that was false and the article I provided and the million others out there just like them support that. You can try and twist things about saying "Oh your article says nothing about training" when you didn't either, or "Yeah, but... but, the CIA channelled the money through Pakistan so it's not the same" all you want, because at the end of the day, all of that is irrelevant to what you initially typed, and my response to you.

P.S. You have totally misunderstood the meaning of my name. Not that you are in a position to comment anyway, as there are about 45 spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in your latter post. Hardly great is it, seeing as you're just copying or paraphrasing out of your gospel of 1980's middle eastern affairs there.

The CIA and Al queda/Osama ties continued well beyond the 1980's, too.


www.globalresearch.ca...

A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere's book "Corridors of Terror" points to alleged "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment

Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment "negotiating with CIA"?

The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001


Hmmm, well well well. What about the 1998 thing, also? You realise, this thread has become totally sidetracked, because of you, BlatantBlue.







[edit on 23-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
what dont you get? Osama was not involved with the cia, the cia did not work with osama. Osamas top 2nd man said it himself. you are not reading anything provided to you, so just stop. but thanks for counting my grammatical errors. im glad you are a vehement supporter of proper grammar, but not factual information.


this thread hasnt been "sidetracked." the thread topic is about terrorists. i mentioned something to Hawaii boy, and youre the one who took it to the next level. he was asking about the govt and alqaeda and covering up, as if the al qaeda wasnt real. so i responded.


and as for Dubai,
what CIA agent "brags" about meeting bin laden?
NONE. thats problem one with your source.
and what CIA agent is known to many in the social circuit of Dubai (as stated in chinadaily)?
it doesnt wash!
www.snopes.com...
the freaking director of the hospital said he was never there.


the sources are nonexistant. we're supposed to take their word for it.
www.chinadaily.com.cn...
china daily writes how they met to negotiate an end of al qaeda hostilities towards americans.

so the story varies where you go, and the story itself has no foundation.

come on, seriously.

im done with it! i apologize if anyone thinks ive "sidetracked" this thread. well not really.
communication master you just wont accept the CIA didnt get involved with Osama.
dont bother reposting because i will not entertain your garbage.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
If it was the terrorists that planted explosives then I agree with those here who say that this information would have been all over the 9 o'clock news. The fact that all of the media reports of internal explosives were pulled sends up an unignorable red flag that the military was involved.

This is where we should really be looking into those reports that an Israeli Mossad spy ring was arrested in connection with 9/11. Too bad they disappeared from custody though.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I said that the u.s. government might be covering up (making up fake reasons) to the real reason why terrorists are fighting.
They might put on the news fake reasons like they are bad or they are a terrorist religeion to make people think theyre crazy and bad etc.To have a bad view on
No one knows the real truth why alqeada is fighting unless you ask some1 who is a real alqeada /whatever why.Unless you go up to them(terrorist's) and ask them/

I am against any war and for peace.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Hawaii_boy]

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Hawaii_boy]

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Hawaii_boy]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Oh, denial...

Bin Laden comes home to roost

It ain't just a river in Egypt!




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
To get a good grasp of why the US is by far the best bet, you have to look outside of 9/11 to the general scheme of things: corporations and corporatism (fascism), banks, the military industrial complex, al Qaeda, the CIA, the Cold War, the role of fear in propoganda, etc.

Or here's a quick look at a lot of damning material:

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

Watch that. It shows how US factions (FBI heads, military) prevented investigations into and even the arrests of al Qaeda cells that they knew were in the US before 9/11, and how an FBI informant roomed with two of the alleged hijackers, and etc.

It's not a replacement for a good "alternative" history lesson but it should at least serve to offer evidence of US involvement in 9/11 without having to get into huge discussions. Realistically, the only people who would and could pull off such a professionally orchestrated psy-op on US soil, would be US intel/military factions.


"Realistically, the only people who would and could pull off such a professionally orchestrated psy-op on US soil, would be US intel/military factions" because the placement and distribution are much too perfect for the "well placed bomb" theory. Bombs blow holes in things not tun them into SAND & GRAVEL.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Christophera]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Want evidence? Sure, here's some video evidence, straight from a firefighter during the tragedy (can't get any plainer than this): prisonplanet.com...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Nope certainly can't. When firefighters begin to say that there were bombs that brought down the towers then that pretty much sums it up. It should be the end of the argument really. Firefighters know what they are talking about. Especially the ones who were told on the radio that there were bombs and that they should get out.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Maybe they are covering up their incompetence, that in itself is a serious crime, but maybe that's 'all' there is to it?

[edit on 22-5-2006 by AgentSmith]


This is certainly a possibility. All facts aside, this is perfectly plausable.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I am completely skimming the thread and I am just responding to Agent Smith here.

I actually have considdered this BUT the only thing I can't fathom is why the planes? why would terrorist need planes if they already had the bombs in place?

this in it self is enough to again point towards the government.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join