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.

 

So the Gov. Destroyed WTC, but Why?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
two words: war corporatism.
(afghanistan, iraq... to be continued...)




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
In true CT fashion all these responses avoid addressing the actual question of WHY blow up the towers to get to Iraq. The idea that mass murder of its own citizens was needed in order to justify attacking Iraq is just simplistic.


[edit on 18-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


In true CT fashion all these responses avoid addressing the actual question of WHY blow up the towers to get to Iraq. The idea that mass murder of its own citizens was needed in order to justify attacking Iraq is just simplistic.


[edit on 18-6-2006 by Vushta]


That's so cliche of you to say Vushta.

And it wasn't a "mass murder" to justify Iraq, it was proposing a fear aspect upon the American public which they felt insecure about, the United States took advantage of proposing this fear of "Terrorism" (what a broad generalization, pretty immature if you ask me). With that, they used it to gather vital strategic positions in the Middle East for further political and economic goals.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I believe this is the first of many yet to come "resource wars" which has Peak Oil as the root cause. it appears we peaked in the production of oil globally in 2002, usgs estimated that peak will happen in 2007.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Anyone who so much as knows what the word psychology means knows why those towers were blown. I dare say most people would assume this to be the general idea behind the reasoning of blowing the towers, even if one doesn't believe the towers were actually blown in the first place.

Flying planes into the towers both brought the media and offered a cause for the towers' collapses without having to expose too much information to the public. Compare New Yorkers' reactions to the impacts to their reactions to the collapses. Watch a collapse video like Hoboken from 9/11 Eyewitness and you'll have no problem picking out the immense amount of emotion from all of the cries and screaming. It was a horrible thing to watch, and it was immediately obvious that a lot of people had died. It was infuriating, and Islamic hijackers' photos were flashed on TV screens soon enough afterwards for all of the anger and hatred to be pinned directly onto them. And thus initiating war in Afghanistan was a piece of cake. People wanted it. It was perfect for those in power that wanted war. People are usually reluctant to go to war, except after events like Pearl Harbor or the Gulf of Tonkin or 9/11.

But it didn't stop there, and Bush made it clear that it wouldn't stop there from the beginning. It's a war on terror that 9/11 kick off, not just a war on Afghanistan. Without 9/11 there would be no war on terror, and no war in Iraq. And we'll have more war, no doubt. And 9/11 will be referenced many more times as we invade these new countries.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nikolaos2030
How many people have benefited.

A small list:
Arms dealers
Banks
Construction companies
Oil contractors
Gas contractors
Oil rig builders
Transnational corporations
Documentary makers (Discovery, National Georgraphic, Adventure 1, News agencies)

Wouldn't these groups do reasonably well without planes having been used as weapons? I would have thought that if you need to provoke a conflict in such a manner, or use such an attack as an excuse for a purely money-making war, then both your economy and your ethics are extremely shaky.



Originally posted by tuccy
Don't you think the insurance companies would be a bit reluctant to pay him his cheques had there been doubts?

Some people do indeed assert that certain insurance companies were party to the conspiracy (It's a bit long but interesting) - rinf.com : 9/11 Whistleblower, Richard Andrew Grove



Originally posted by Gear
One word my friend: Distraction.

I agree, the towers have indeed served as a large, convenient distraction from the main issues.



Originally posted by Vushta
In true CT fashion all these responses avoid addressing the actual question of WHY blow up the towers to get to Iraq. The idea that mass murder of its own citizens was needed in order to justify attacking Iraq is just simplistic.

I concur. As you imply in your following post, I think these events are part of a long term strategy to secure resources for future American interests. It is important to note, also, that these actions are being done for the benefit of the American people.

My take on things is this :

Strategists have foreseen conflicts for resources in the near-medium term. A sizeable 'allied' presence in the area is deemed neccesary. 9/11 was 'assisted' by a few well placed 'allied' individuals, making the American public more amenable to action overseas. I am not convinced that the towers were 'blown'.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   


That's so cliche of you to say Vushta.


I think you misunderstood my point--unless I misunderstood yours et.al.


It seems like people are implying that concocting an "inside job" to "blow the towers" in order to justify invading Iraq was the "plan" all along.
This is idiotic in my opinion. If this isn't what people are getting at, I sorry for the misunderstanding.

To me cliche is using terms like "sheeple"--Inside job"--"psy-ops"--bringing up "Operation Northwoods" --or "Carlyle Group" etc.

All I pointed out was that the point of the thread was not being addressed in favor of changing the topic to "who benefited from it". Thats a different subject and I simply pointed that out.

My point about CTs doing little more than changing the subject or dodging question is just a demonstratable fact.



And it wasn't a "mass murder" to justify Iraq,


Thats my point. It wasn't a mass murder to justify Iraq. It was simply a mass murder carried out by terrorists.


[edit on 18-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
In true CT fashion all these responses avoid addressing the actual question of WHY blow up the towers to get to Iraq. The idea that mass murder of its own citizens was needed in order to justify attacking Iraq is just simplistic.


You are right it is too simplistic. My tupence on why, other than war.

The government/military need to have an 'enemy' to justify it's overbearing existence in our lives and Worlds stage.
Without an enemy, real or fabricated, 'we the people' would not tolerate what the government and military do. Over spending, intrusion in our privacy, ever more laws etc...
Having an 'enemy' to protect us from gives them more power and control. The gov and military protect the rich wealthy elites, who actually run the government. Without this protection (and propaganda/conditioning) 'we the people' would be a major threat to the rich.

So we get the 'war on drugs', 'war on crime', 'war on terrorism', 'the cold war' etc...
We all know that drug use, crime and terrorism is higher now than ever. It seems these 'wars' don't work, but they do. They have the indented result, fear.

Instilling fear into the population, by making us feel constantly at risk, gives the government more power. Power is what it's all about.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

My take on things is this :

Strategists have foreseen conflicts for resources in the near-medium term. A sizeable 'allied' presence in the area is deemed neccesary. 9/11 was 'assisted' by a few well placed 'allied' individuals, making the American public more amenable to action overseas. I am not convinced that the towers were 'blown'.





This is a good point and I agree with it in part.

The world and the way it functions is based in cold hard fact that a country will use any event to its advantage.

This is completely different than CAUSING the event. My point of saying that 911 was an inside job is an idiotic concept is because---well it is.

The "inside jobers" have this incredibly complex conspiracy theory that would take the involvement THOUSANDS of people and facitities and organizations from news reporters to airline personel and their facilities to FBI agents to cilivians to scientists to research facilities to pilots to firemen to recue workers to labratory facilities and their technicians to hospital personel to forensic labs to universities to peer review organizations in other countries, not all of whom are US allies to independant testing labs to---etc etc. And not ONE person "spilled the beans" for having a hand in mass murder.

Not only are all those people needed for 911 to be an inside job, but CTs imply completely impossible logistics and technologies--rigging the buildings with no one noticing--non existant remote controlled detonation--C4 coated rebar etc. etc.

Why bother and take such a chance?

For years we controlled the airspace in Iraq.
With over 10 years of control of the areas we quite simply could have planted all the incrimination evidence of involvement in 911--or WMDs or whatever requiring the "plot" to be kept secret by just a handful of people.

But what happened? The evil, corrupt, bloodsucking "gubment" admitted its mistakes and stated that Iraq had no WMDs or involvement in 911.
Why would such a deceptive evil war machine do that? Why not built confidence in the people for more invasions of other countries by "finding" evidence that would show their wisdom in a pre-emptive strike?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
This is completely different than CAUSING the event. My point of saying that 911 was an inside job is an idiotic concept is because---well it is.

Totally agree with you...when it is painted in the light some people seem to like to.

However, I am not sure you do actually need thousands, even hundreds, of insiders to pull off a 9/11-type event. A few well-placed, influential, individuals could, perhaps, delay the deployment of aerial defences for just long enough to allow the planes to reach their targets.

The remaining personnel could very easily have been terrorists. In fact, seeing as we know there are some very crazy people in the world, it would seem most sensible to get brainwashed individuals to carry out attacks like this. Again, a few well placed individuals could quite easily assist in the execution of such a plan.

Moreover, the idea that the whole operation did not involve figures whom we should consider as being 'on our side' seems equally improbable...to me, anyway!



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Vushta
In true CT fashion all these responses avoid addressing the actual question of WHY blow up the towers to get to Iraq. The idea that mass murder of its own citizens was needed in order to justify attacking Iraq is just simplistic.


You are right it is too simplistic. My tupence on why, other than war.

The government/military need to have an 'enemy' to justify it's overbearing existence in our lives and Worlds stage.
Without an enemy, real or fabricated, 'we the people' would not tolerate what the government and military do. Over spending, intrusion in our privacy, ever more laws etc...
Having an 'enemy' to protect us from gives them more power and control. The gov and military protect the rich wealthy elites, who actually run the government. Without this protection (and propaganda/conditioning) 'we the people' would be a major threat to the rich.

So we get the 'war on drugs', 'war on crime', 'war on terrorism', 'the cold war' etc...
We all know that drug use, crime and terrorism is higher now than ever. It seems these 'wars' don't work, but they do. They have the indented result, fear.

Instilling fear into the population, by making us feel constantly at risk, gives the government more power. Power is what it's all about.


You may be surprised, but I agree with your statement. People who profit from the current system have too much invested in the military based economy to "give peace a chance". Enemies must be created or the blank checks stop. Unfortunately in the process we have created REAL enemies..vicious enemies.

But this has no connection to an "inside job" to blow the towers and serves as a distraction from any real dialog for change.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   


However, I am not sure you do actually need thousands, even hundreds, of insiders to pull off a 9/11-type event. A few well-placed, influential, individuals could, perhaps, delay the deployment of aerial defences for just long enough to allow the planes to reach their targets.


In the type of inside job I think you're talking about the number of people "in the know" would indeed be greatly reduced...but I believe that the vast majority of inside job advocates reject anything but a controlled demo..I.E. the building were taken down by explosives.
In THAT scenerio I believe the "thousands" estimate is in the ball park.




Moreover, the idea that the whole operation did not involve figures whom we should consider as being 'on our side' seems equally improbable...to me, anyway!


We might have a misunderstanding of what I meant.

By the "not all of whom were our allies" comment, I meant that the result, evidence, and investigative methodology used to arrive at the conclusions of the causes of the WTC collapses was peer reviewed by people and institutions from around the world..not only our allies.

If thats what you meant?


MMC

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   


In the type of inside job I think you're talking about the number of people "in the know" would indeed be greatly reduced...but I believe that the vast majority of inside job advocates reject anything but a controlled demo..I.E. the building were taken down by explosives.
In THAT scenerio I believe the "thousands" estimate is in the ball park.


That's incorrect. The planting of 20,000lbs of thermite or explosives requires a minimum of 33 people. Access to the WTC via an inside job would require less than 10 people in key positions.


Additional Notes 1: Calculations on the Number of People Required to Plant 20,000lbs of Thermite or Explosives
www.gieis.uni.cc...

Any group of sufficient size involved in organised crime can achieve this.

www.gieis.uni.cc...



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMC


In the type of inside job I think you're talking about the number of people "in the know" would indeed be greatly reduced...but I believe that the vast majority of inside job advocates reject anything but a controlled demo..I.E. the building were taken down by explosives.
In THAT scenerio I believe the "thousands" estimate is in the ball park.


That's incorrect. The planting of 20,000lbs of thermite or explosives requires a minimum of 33 people. Access to the WTC via an inside job would require less than 10 people in key positions.


Additional Notes 1: Calculations on the Number of People Required to Plant 20,000lbs of Thermite or Explosives
www.gieis.uni.cc...

Any group of sufficient size involved in organised crime can achieve this.

www.gieis.uni.cc...


How about all the other people?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


Moreover, the idea that the whole operation did not involve figures whom we should consider as being 'on our side' seems equally improbable...to me, anyway!


We might have a misunderstanding of what I meant.


Ah, crossed wires are indeed a common feature of the information age.


My comment was expressing the opinion that the planning and execution of the actual attacks on 9/11 intrinsically required a certain number of 'insiders' for it to have succeeded.



Originally posted by Vushta
By the "not all of whom were our allies" comment, I meant that the result, evidence, and investigative methodology used to arrive at the conclusions of the causes of the WTC collapses was peer reviewed by people and institutions from around the world..not only our allies.


Yes, with regard to the actual tower collapses themselves, these particular episodes are open to scrutiny accross the globe. Obviously, though, there is still much debate surrounding the nature of the collapses.

It does appear slightly odd, to me, that they fell virtually in their own footprints. That requires a pretty uniform material separation at numerous points within the towers' structures. However, it may be the case that the towers did not fall due to pre-placed explosives. In fact, I would go as far as to say that, to my mind, the 'bombs in the towers' is the least likely scenario to have occured out of all the conspiracy theories seriously debated.

Can you point me in the direction of a definitive account of the mechanics of the collapses that satisfies a large majority of independant 'experts'? As I say, I don't believe it was bombs (though that doesn't mean it wasn't), it's just that I imagine the reality regarding why the towers collapsed to be 'we just don't know for sure', which inevitably inspires howls of 'conspiracy'.


MMC

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
If you have a group of 50 people in the background financing an operation, they don't need to know the specifics...just knowledge that can be used for insider trading.

To carry out the operation at a physical level, 33 people...with possibly 10 people as inside men in key positions.

That's relatively small compared to the scale of operations in the world of organised crime.

It could suggest that its a small group of extremists numbering less than 500 in the US, hiding behind the patriotism of millions.

www.gieis.uni.cc...

[edit on 18-6-2006 by MMC]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMC
That's incorrect. The planting of 20,000lbs of thermite or explosives requires a minimum of 33 people. Access to the WTC via an inside job would require less than 10 people in key positions.

The way it is described on the site sounds simple enough, but surely you would have to attach the explosive to the actual steel structure itself...wouldn't you?

Interestingly...



Wikipedia - World Trade Centre
during the WTC's early years various governmental organizations became key tenants. It was not until the 1980s that the city's perilous financial state eased, after which an increasing number of private companies — mostly financial firms tied to Wall Street — became tenants.

'Governmental organizations'...



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   


Can you point me in the direction of a definitive account of the mechanics of the collapses that satisfies a large majority of independant 'experts'



This is a great site to start with.
This is a science and fact based site with some quite knowledgeable people who frequent it. Many a CT has sulked away from there.

Its a mostly science oriented site but they have a section on conspiracies with hours of valuable reading in some of their 911 threads.
Enjoy.


www.bautforum.com...



Obviously, though, there is still much debate surrounding the nature of the collapses.


There is only debate among the CTs and people who have not researched the facts.
Doesn't it seem odd that not one...not one ..reputable structural engineering facility or individual involved in failure analysis has any problem with the conclusions of the final report of the collapses? Are THEY in on it too? Add another thousand to the conspiracy.



It does appear slightly odd, to me, that they fell virtually in their own footprints.


This is a red herring. Building 7 was heavily damaged by debris of the towers collapse even though it was a distance away and barriered by building 6....hardly "in the buildings own footprint"




Yes, with regard to the actual tower collapses themselves, these particular episodes are open to scrutiny accross the globe.


I was refering to the after the event conclusions, evidence, and methodology of the investigations themselves. They were peer reviewed by scientists and facilities from around the globe.


MMC

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   


the explosive to the actual steel structure itself...wouldn't you?


Not necessarly, but then, there was only a gypsum wall between the central core and the interior of the building.

You'd go through that in no time...you could even cover it up quite well, considering it was going to be demolished.

www.gieis.uni.cc...

[edit on 18-6-2006 by MMC]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
I was refering to the after the event conclusions, evidence, and methodology of the investigations themselves. They were peer reviewed by scientists and facilities from around the globe.

Gotcha.


Cheers for the link...I shall peruse it at my leisure.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join