Please tell me WHY? 9/11 was done.

I have seen thread uopn thread supporting the 9/11 conspiracy...bomb,missle, controled explosions...blah, blah,blah.

Tell me why it was done!

Why would the government of the U.S., or Bush, or Haliburton or the Bilderbergs would do it.

There is an old saying "Follow the money." So who would profit from the holocost perpetrated on the U.S.? Who?

You people who believe this B.S. need to get away from the freaky HOW IT HAPPENED and explain the why.

The news loves to say more and more people are believing this cock-and-bull story.

The why is so the US can have an excuse to invade the midddle east. At least that is what I keep being told.

Well there are a few reasons, and not just financial.

To justify the massive power of the military and government it has to convince the population of it's necessity. If there were no 'dangers', real or not, to protect us from then the population wouldn't except the ridiculous spending, the ridiculous new laws (pat act etc.), constant conflict, and if we really woke up, the whole system they control. If we didn't live in a pyramid scheme then we could all be comfortable. Yes we could feed and house everyone.

Look at history, there is always a 'danger' we need 'protecting' from, communism, fascism, drugs, crime, terrorism etc. As time goes on it is generally found that most of these 'dangers' were not real, or were exaggerated, or were just totally created by those who claim to protect us from them.
Check your history, nothing changes. Control through fear by a paranoid ruling elite. They have far more to lose than we do, the biggest threat to them is us not Islam.
We create their wealth, we allow their power and control, think about it.

It's no different than when it was the land owner and the peasants, they've just modernized their methods. They've got more psychological about it, thanks to the nazi's. But so have we, and they struggle to stay ahead.
The more 'aware' the population becomes, the more dangerous the enemy has to be, the more 'shock and awe' it takes to frighten the population back into compliance.
To the elites we are a necessary burden to deal with, which is the job of the government.

They also want to control the Middle East, something the West has been trying to do for centuries (nothing changes, only evolves). This is where the money starts to come in, property = money = power = control. Think of the government as a corporation who's goal is to make the maximum profit above anything else.

Then there are the people like silversteiner who see only $ signs. To them, money (the beast) gives them the prestige and power they feel they deserve and any death is just collateral damage. Paranoia paradise, they would rather kill you than lose what they have.
Our friend made out big time, insurance and billions saved from not having to rip asbestos out of the WTC buildings. He will also probably get big time government help with his new WTC project.

I think to a lot of the elite it's just a game. When you want for nothing, what else do you do with your time?

The real reason in few words is to bring the New World Order into being. The global government requires a compliant US people. All the payoffs and rewards that accrued after 911 were promised to the main players in the staged show. The purpose is to further the agenda of the brotherhood/illuminati towards the desired end by a certain time.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The real reason in few words is to bring the New World Order into being. The global government requires a compliant US people. All the payoffs and rewards that accrued after 911 were promised to the main players in the staged show. The purpose is to further the agenda of the brotherhood/illuminati towards the desired end by a certain time.

They have a deadline to meet.

Because the administration already planned on going into IRAQ before sept11.
THey knew the public wouldnt follow them unless they were given just reason.

They heard these arabs wanted to attack,
And figured, if it was devistating enough they would have enough public support by default to launch a war.
A war which was planned soley to make certain people a lot of money.

They didnt increase security, the attacks happened, they provided the mickey mouse evidence and boom, we now find ourselves making bucket loads of money for members in the inncer circle, at the expense of those nasty muslim insurgents.

Only problem is they didnt count on IRAN joining the mix.
They never wanted a bloody war, all the hype about thousands dead in baghdad streets was propoganda, trying to make the war look authentic.

Now theres Iran next door, threatening to bring the USA the mother of all battles, the battle the USA made you think was coming against Iraq.
These now 'rich' men never had the balls to wage a major military battle, and now they are going to be forced to

From The Project For The New American Centuries report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published in 2000.

Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military’s combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead.

......

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

So American economic dominance must continue according to PNAC. Knowing about Peak Oil in the years previous Dick Cheney would be aware that without secure energy supplies that the PNAC's desired Pax Americana could not be fulfilled.

Four days after becoming Vice President, Cheney convened his National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) in which he received extensive information on Peak Oil from world-renowned experts. He has refused to release the documents from those hearings to Congress or the American people.

Also as Cheney has said, "the American way of life is not negotiable", roughly translated as we will continue to consume more and more energy in order to drive our energy hungry economy.

With China and India coming on the scene and oil production due to peak the only way to secure energy supplies was to mobilise the US military to sit atop the desired fields and pipelines. As PNAC state, this wouldn't be possible without a massive about-turn in funding for the military and roughly translated this wouldn't be sanctioned quickly enough "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

That's how I see it. Or you could still believe it's because "they hate our freedoms"....

[edit on 15-9-2006 by uknumpty]

Thats an easy answer look what has happened since,now trying to turn US into a form of martial law

Yes, it might be a conspiracy.

But in the other hand, its highly unlikely. If the offical version is the one that makes more sense and is the one who collects the best evidences, why do you prefer to support the unlikely versions?

Thats just because they are more interesting. This sound weird, but fact is, it would be great to know that it was the american government that did this. The previous generation had the Hippies and Vietnam. Before that there was the World Wars.

This generation lacks something to fight for, and problem is that a few terrorists hided in the mountains in Afghanistan aint up for the job.

You could go to germany or pacific fight against the Axis. You could go out on the streets and burn the american flag during the war in vietnam.

But against terrorism all we can do is let the secret agencies make most of the job, and hope for not suffering a terrorist atack.

Thats the real issue. That's why people prefer to believe in the conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by uknumpty
From The Project For The New American Centuries report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published in 2000.

Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military’s combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead.

......

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

So American economic dominance must continue according to PNAC. Knowing about Peak Oil in the years previous Dick Cheney would be aware that without secure energy supplies that the PNAC's desired Pax Americana could not be fulfilled.

Four days after becoming Vice President, Cheney convened his National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) in which he received extensive information on Peak Oil from world-renowned experts. He has refused to release the documents from those hearings to Congress or the American people.

Also as Cheney has said, "the American way of life is not negotiable", roughly translated as we will continue to consume more and more energy in order to drive our energy hungry economy.

With China and India coming on the scene and oil production due to peak the only way to secure energy supplies was to mobilise the US military to sit atop the desired fields and pipelines. As PNAC state, this wouldn't be possible without a massive about-turn in funding for the military and roughly translated this wouldn't be sanctioned quickly enough "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

That's how I see it. Or you could still believe it's because "they hate our freedoms"....

[edit on 15-9-2006 by uknumpty]

BANG... hit the nail square on the head.! and if you need more "proof" of this... check out the ENTIRE membership of the PNAC... whaty companies they are invloved in, what governmental postions they hold, etc. World Dominance requires foreward operating bases... think about the strategic positioning of Iraq and Afghanistan... Then think of Sun Tzu's Art of War... take out your weaker enemies and use their resources and positioning to attack your stronger enemies... Is it getting clearer?

No its not Slap Nuts.

With all due respect, but that means and proofs absolutly nothing.

---

You see the american government atacking Iraq and Afghanistan, and you think they are taking positions for world dominance.

From my point of view, the maximum you can reach with this is that Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded because they were more fragile, and there was a good chance of geting better access to their oil, etc...

although i dont see things so raw as this. And i definitely dont see this as an attempt of world dominance. (what would this mean anyway?)



[edit on 15-9-2006 by NinterX]

Originally posted by NinterX
No its not Slap Nuts.

With all due respect, but that means and proofs absolutly nothing.

You are right... them announcing they WANTED this type of disaster to happen doe not equal proof.

Them using it EXACTLY how they mention above, to furteher their agenda... not proof.

Their agenda moving foreward just as planned... not proof.

PRetty nice coincidences if you are the PNAC though eh?

Please calculate the ODDS of "A New Pearl Harbour" occuring within MONTHS of them writing this paper..

They should morgtage the country and bet it all on 16 at the roulette table the are SO LUCKY!

I wish I was that lucky.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by NinterX
No its not Slap Nuts.

With all due respect, but that means and proofs absolutly nothing.

---

You see the american government atacking Iraq and Afghanistan, and you think they are taking positions for world dominance.

What we do know is that the stated reasons for going into Iraq has been proven to be a lie.

From my point of view, the maximum you can reach with this is that Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded because they were more fragile, and there was a good chance of geting better access to their oil, etc...

And it takes alot of oil for a global war machine to work... ALOT of oil.
IF 'they' wanted to rule the world, the first thing 'they' would secure would be fuel oil for 'their' military.

although i dont see things so raw as this. And i definitely dont see this as an attempt of world dominance. (what would this mean anyway?)
[edit on 15-9-2006 by NinterX]

There are people that want to rule the world.
To think otherwise would simply be ignorant, but everybody is entitled to their opinion.

You are right... them announcing they WANTED this type of disaster to happen doe not equal proof.

Wrong. Here is an anology:

-The president must decide wether to send a special forces unit to Somalia, in order to resque 2 americans. He is warned that all the soldiers might perish during the mission.

The president decides to send the unit. Does this mean he wants the soldiers to die? Ofcourse not.

Just like in the comment above.

Them using it EXACTLY how they mention above, to furteher their agenda... not proof.

It was a fact that US was lacking in defense investiment. Thats why they suffered the attack. And if they wanted to proof that to people, they just had to show the official numbers.

And lets make some sense out of this. Why would the government make a self attack so that then they could invest in defense and invade Iraq? What happened is much more simple then that.

The american government wouldnt need that. If they wanted to attack Iraq, they would attack Iraq. in fact, thats what happened.

Like i said in a previous post, the burning of american flags during the war in vietnam wasnt enough to make them stop.

Currently, and in case there was no 11/9, the american government would be able to invade Iraq, using exactly the same lies, and the americans wouldnt be burning their own flag, nor acting as violently as they did during vietnam. and even if they did, it wasnt worth sending 2 towers down and possibly making the highest act of treasonry in the history of mankind.

And here comes another point. Nationalism ends up being a bad thing in most cases, but no way a president, specially Bush, would make such an attack on their own people.

Unless you believe that exists something more powerfull above the american government...

Please calculate the ODDS of "A New Pearl Harbour" occuring within MONTHS of them writing this paper...

ok, imagine that you were one of this guys who were lieing to the american people. Would you come to public networks and give hints all over the place about this ULTRASUPERSECRET project??

If that was true, most of the things that conspirationists consider as proofs wouldnt have been said or made.

The only reason why those "proofs" exist, is because those people have nothing to hide in what is related to the terrorist attack.

There are people that want to rule the world.
To think otherwise would simply be ignorant, but everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Everybody wants to rule the world.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by NinterX]

Originally posted by NinterX
Wrong.

Ummm... since Pearl Harbour = dead Americans on American soil YOUR analogy is not releveant. "A New Pearl Harbour" = Dead Americans on American Soil...

Originally posted by NinterX
It was a fact that US was lacking in defense investiment. Thats why they suffered the attack.

You are aware that on 9/10/2001 the Pentagon announced they LOST TRACK OF > $2 TRILLION DOLLARS... we were NOT lacking on defense spending... they just WANTED MORE.

Where would more money have stopped the BS supposed hijackers anyway?

Originally posted by NinterX
And if they wanted to proof that to people, they just had to show the official numbers.

What, that they "lost" > $2 TRILLION DOLLARS at the Pentagon? LOL

Originally posted by NinterX
And lets make some sense out of this. Why would the government make a self attack so that then they could invest in defense and invade Iraq?

It is part of a grander plan... read their own words in Rebuilding Americas Defenses...

Originally posted by NinterX
Like i said in a previous post, the burning of american flags during the war in vietnam wasnt enough to make them stop.

what does this have to do with anything?

Originally posted by NinterX
Currently, and in case there was no 11/9, the american government would be able to invade Iraq, using exactly the same lies, and the americans wouldnt be burning their own flag, nor acting as violently as they did during vietnam. and even if they did, it wasnt worth sending 2 towers down and possibly making the highest act of treasonry in the history of mankind.

Pure speculation... Without 9/11 Bush would have needed Congresional approval to invade Iraq AND Afghanistan... He WOULD NOT have gotten it.

Do you think that people that deal in TRILLIONS of dollars and CONTROL THE FREE WORLD give a damn about THREE towers and a couple of thousand people? You are kidding yourself and ignoring history if you do.

Originally posted by NinterX
And here comes another point. Nationalism ends up being a bad thing in most cases, but no way a president, specially Bush, would make such an attack on their own people.

There is historical presedence for this occuring and being suggested. HE SAID HE WANTED NATIONALISM, UNITY and needed it to advance the doctrine of PREEMPTIVELY striking anyone anywhere. Without 9/11 Congress and the public would NEVER have backed pre-emptivley striking anyone. You have your facts and speculation all wrong.

Originally posted by NinterX
ok, imagine that you were one of this guys who were lieing to the american people. Would you come to public networks and give hints all over the place about this ULTRASUPERSECRET project??

It is all part of their plan. You need to think like a criminal which most people are incapable of doing... IT is the same logic with hitting the Pentagon... Why do it? It makes you look innocent as you were attacked too. If a thief is going to rob his neighbors apartments, he will also rob his own... then, he is not a suspect. VERY common occurence in the criminal world.

Originally posted by NinterX
The only reason why those "proofs" exist, is because those people have nothing to hide in what is related to the terrorist attack.

NOTHING TO HIDE?

The PROVEN LIES: www.abovetopsecret.com...

THE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah... Nothing to hide.

Are you aware that anyone entering lower manhatten during the 9/11 cleanup were searched at military checkpoints specifically for cameras and had them confiscated?

Yeah... nothing to hide.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Pure speculation...

I kind of laughed when i readed this...

Anyway, what you use as proofs can mean a bunch of things. but you prefer to mix them together to look like a conspiracy.

Its just like the "american never went to moon". Very legit proofs about that were up for a very long time, until someone comes up to explain how all those "proofs" had a simple explanation.

It made the conspiracy look ridiculous.

The reason why the government says nothing about this, is the same reason why they said nothing when identical conspiracies appeared related to the moon.

-"Oh, the flag was blowing but theres no wind in the Moon!"

-"Thats because they were moving the flag...physics."

I dont understand how atomic bombs work, but i do know they exist.

Just because you dont understand some things, doesnt mean there isnt a reliable explanation for it.

And dont worry, it wont take long until someone gets tired of this conspiracy theories, and makes a RELIABLE documentary, explaining and destroying all the stuff the conspirationists use as proof. Someone like BBC or DISCOVERY CHANNEL. Professionals, you know?

Then that will also look ridiculous. Dont expect the government to answer it tho.




[edit on 15-9-2006 by NinterX]

Originally posted by NinterX
I kind of laughed when i readed this...

I really laughed when I read this. ^^^

Originally posted by NinterX
Anyway, what you use as proofs can mean a bunch of things. but you prefer to mix them together to look like a conspiracy.

I just present the evidence, you decide if it is a conspiracy. Also, I suggest you look up the term "conspiracy" and rephrase.

Originally posted by NinterX
Its just like the "american never went to moon". Very legit proofs about that were up for a very long time, until someone comes up to explain how all those "proofs" had a simple explanation.

Why are you attempting to discredit me using a topic I have never addressed and in the wrong forum.... Couldn't be because you are trying ot make me out to be crazy could it?

Originally posted by NinterX
The reason why the government says nothing about this, is the same reason why they said nothing when identical conspiracies appeared related to the moon.

Not even a close compairison... When did the gov't fund investigations to determine what went on at the moon (i.e. NIST, 9/11 Comission, FEMA)? When did they refuse to release photos and videos? When did the FBI confiscate cameras from those photographing the moon?

Your compairson and point are irrelevant to the topic at hand. One was an "unexplained disaster" that needed investigation... one was a planned mission that did not need investigation...

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

There is an old saying "Follow the money." So who would profit from the holocost perpetrated on the U.S.? Who?

First off look at the price of oil since 9-11.
futures.tradingcharts.com...

From a low of around 17 a barrrel in november 2001 to a high of 78 this year a 350% increase!!!!

So who profits?

The oil companies and suppliers of oil drilling equipmnet.

The no bid contracts for halliburton for billions of dollars in iraq.

The multibillions in increased military spending since 9-11.....going to several companies that supply military equipment to the govt.

Originally posted by crmanager
I have seen thread uopn thread supporting the 9/11 conspiracy...bomb,missle, controled explosions...blah, blah,blah.

Tell me why it was done!

Why would the government of the U.S., or Bush, or Haliburton or the Bilderbergs would do it.

There is an old saying "Follow the money." So who would profit from the holocost perpetrated on the U.S.? Who?

You people who believe this B.S. need to get away from the freaky HOW IT HAPPENED and explain the why.

The news loves to say more and more people are believing this cock-and-bull story.

This book tells you why.

www.amazon.com...

Everything in the book is sourced aswell.

Originally posted by crmanager
Tell me why it was done

To put it as simply as possible: To 'manufacture consent'