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 and WMDs

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I'd like to pose a question to everyone who firmly believes that 9/11 was conducted and orchestrated by the US government to create an excuse for "the war on terror".

If the government could pull off 9/11 with the holographic planes, black helicopters setting off the thermite bombs by remote control, cruise missles into the Pentagon, etc. Don't you think they would have made damn sure there was some sarin and uranium in Iraq when they got there?




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
They don't care? I don't think they care about if the WMD were there or not. They are arrogant you know. And maybe they wouldn't want that people know it would be written: Made In USA on it, because a lot of americans don't know that the US provided the WMDs that Saddam had in the 80s that he used to kill the kurds.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Yes....we understand that Saddam was our boy in the 80's and that we gave him all kinds of nasties.

My point is that if Bush et. al. went to all the trouble of planes and missles and making all the airplane passengers and Pentagon eyewitnesses disappear, why wouldn't they have eliminated any possiblity of political trouble with Iraq by making sure they discovered the WMD?

If they could pull off 9/11 they could certainly make the WMD "discovery" look legitimate. They could lie, cover up and obfuscate the WMD evidence just as well as the 9/11 evidence, could they not?

Your answer is they are arrogant?

Then why not just blow up the WTC with explosives in the middle of the night and say it was Saddam?

[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   


Then why not just blow up the WTC with explosives in the middle of the night and say it was Saddam?

Because it would be impossible to believe. And making 9/11 isn't as hard as it seems. You modify the planes that hitted the WTCs, you struck a missile that looks like a drone/plane into the pentagon, you plant explosives into the WTC7 and in the pentagon... not too hard. You all do this during night and call for repair...

Planting WMDs, it's much more difficult, you have to bring them there, without being notice, before the invasion when Saddam is protecting his country from anyone, plant them, without being seen again, you erase the traces, then you hope they find them... if you bury them under the sand, the troops would never find them, so you could have to put them somewhere where the troops could find them, and if US troops could find them after the war, the Saddam troops could find them and destroy them before the invasion.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Because it would be impossible to believe.


Why would the presence of WMD in Iraq be impossible to believe? Why?


Planting WMDs, it's much more difficult, you have to bring them there, without being notice, before the invasion when Saddam is protecting his country from anyone, plant them, without being seen again, you erase the traces, then you hope they find them... if you bury them under the sand, the troops would never find them, so you could have to put them somewhere where the troops could find them, and if US troops could find them after the war, the Saddam troops could find them and destroy them before the invasion.


There's an easier way. Spooks bring them in with them during or right after the invasion. They direct some Army or Marine units toward them and....Violla...."See, we told you so".

I won't agree to any assertion that this would have been too difficult, and too many people would have had to have been involved, after all the twisted, compounded, convoluted theories I've heard regarding 9/11 from the conspiracy believers.

Come on......planting WMD would be just another run of the mill conspiracy. Why would that one be so much harder to believe than 9/11?

[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Vitchilo - disregard my first comment - I misinterpreted.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Then why not just blow up the WTC with explosives in the middle of the night and say it was Saddam?

Because it would be impossible to believe.


But..."They are Arrogant", no?

Would that be so much more difficult to believe than 20 or so Saudi's executing the highly complex and coordinated 9/11 plan? Allegedly "impossible" according to many.



Is it more difficult to believe than:

a. Flying a 757 into the pentagon (impossible according to many posters on ATS due to ground effect)

b. Bringing WTC 1 and 2 down due to aircraft collision and fire (again allegedly impossible)



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Quite frankly, the WTC issue has been looked into enough to make a valid conclusion THERE WAS a secondary device. As for the committed parties involved.. in the latter.. that has yet to be determined.

So whether there were WMDs there or not, you still have the other issues to figure out.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Quite frankly, the WTC issue has been looked into enough to make a valid conclusion THERE WAS a secondary device. As for the committed parties involved.. in the latter.. that has yet to be determined.

So whether there were WMDs there or not, you still have the other issues to figure out.


I don't think I do. I'll accept your position there was a secondary device which implies the government was complicit.

I want to hear from those who believe this, and ridicule the government for it's failure to find WMD in Iraq.

If they believe 9/11 was a device to start a war (for whatever reason) why wouldn't the same parties that staged 9/11 and started the war make their political hurdles easier to clear by producing the WMD?

sp edit

[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
If they believe 9/11 was a device to start a war (for whatever reason) why wouldn't the same parties that staged 9/11 and started the war make their political hurdles easier to clear by producing the WMD?


They would have to know exactly where the UN inspectors had been and what not. They couldn't just plant WMD anywere. If the UN inspectors had been there and there wasn't WMD and then suddenly we invade and there are, wouldn't some eyebrows be raised?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Quite frankly, the WTC issue has been looked into enough to make a valid conclusion THERE WAS a secondary device. As for the committed parties involved.. in the latter.. that has yet to be determined.


This is an asinine statement. NO PROOF has been presented what-so-ever, only 'wide-eyed speculation' and assumptions.

Provide some actual proof, which hasn't already been debunked, to back up your statement.

Secondary explosions would of shown up on the sismetic readings.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by darkbluesky
If they believe 9/11 was a device to start a war (for whatever reason) why wouldn't the same parties that staged 9/11 and started the war make their political hurdles easier to clear by producing the WMD?


They would have to know exactly where the UN inspectors had been and what not. They couldn't just plant WMD anywere. If the UN inspectors had been there and there wasn't WMD and then suddenly we invade and there are, wouldn't some eyebrows be raised?


Many eybrows have been raised by the events of 9/11/01. I remember a poll that was circulated 2-3 months ago that said >50% of those polled believed the government was involved in 9/11, or allowed it to occur.

Why then wouldn't the responsible parties attempt another staged event that would strengthen their political position w/o resulting in the deaths of 3,000 innocents?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Secondary explosions would of shown up on the sismetic readings.


They did.


“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org... /


From this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, Labtop has done extensive investigation into this. There are many threads that he links to in the above thread.

So, are these "debunked" yet?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Why then wouldn't the responsible parties attempt another staged event that would strengthen their political position w/o resulting in the deaths of 3,000 innocents?


Because if they staged an event or not (real terrorists), we would have thrown the whole lot of them out of office. Imagine if another attack actually occurred. Would we put much faith into our intellegence community or Homeland Security? No, we'd throw them all out.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Folks - Let please not turn this thread into yet another debate on the technical issues surrounding WTC collapse and the Pentagon impact. Lets start from one of two positions:

1) AlQueda was soley responsible, or
2) US govt was solely or partially responsible

What I want to examine is why those who believe (2) dont think the govt would have simply planted WMD in Iraq.

If 2 is true, and I was part of the plot, I certainly would have planted WMD in Iraq.

Wouldn't you?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ferretman2
Secondary explosions would of shown up on the sismetic readings.


They did.


“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org... /


From this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, Labtop has done extensive investigation into this. There are many threads that he links to in the above thread.

So, are these "debunked" yet?


Griff - It appears to me you believe 9/11 was in inside job. Am I correct?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Griff - It appears to me you believe 9/11 was in inside job. Am I correct?


To an extent. I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.

There is some evidence that at least one terrorists had a pass to the WTC buildings.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So, it could just be that the US government allowed it to happen. Bombs and all.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Griff - It appears to me you believe 9/11 was in inside job. Am I correct?


To an extent. I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.


I understand, I find much of the evidence and agruments on both sides extremely compelling. My problem is with what appear to me, to be the many inconsistencies/paradox's.

Why fly the planes into the bldgs if you are also using explosives? The only answer I can come up with is that it provides evidence of terrorists clear enough for the blind to see.

Then, if planes and explosives are used in NY, why a cruise missle in DC?

Then, why not let Flt 93 reach its target? If it was brought down by passengers then the Saudi hijackers were the real deal. If it was shot down, why was it shot down instead of letting it hit the WH or Capitol or some other DC target?

So...if we get to the point where we believe 9/11 was an inside job, we have to ask ourselves... Why didn't the perpetrators continue the deception with WMD in Iraq? It would have made them hero's in everyones eyes.

I'm sorry. I don't buy the argument that it would have been too difficult, or too unbelievable after all the claims that have been made by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Folks - Let please not turn this thread into yet another debate on the technical issues surrounding WTC collapse and the Pentagon impact. Lets start from one of two positions:

1) AlQueda was soley responsible, or
2) US govt was solely or partially responsible

What I want to examine is why those who believe (2) dont think the govt would have simply planted WMD in Iraq.

If 2 is true, and I was part of the plot, I certainly would have planted WMD in Iraq.

Wouldn't you?



Maybe not. . .

Because that's what everyone would be looking for, "the cover up". There's no such thing as the perfect crime. There would be some evidence of such activities left behind, no matter how small, for someone to possibly stumble across & expose the lie.

What if they actually did find something, but in such a way that accusations of fraud could be put fourth so they decided not to disclose the information?

Finding the WMD might be harder to explain than not finding them. . . " I know you're hiding them somewhere Saddam! I guess we'll just have to keep looking till we find them. . ."

It may be a better story that there aren't any. . .

A theory could then put fourth that they must have moved them to Syria or Iran for safe keeping. This would then in turn create probable cause to attack those countries. Hmmmm.

Just a thought.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
1. holographic planes, explosives, remote flying all that bs is nothing but bs.

2. The Iraqi leaders all knew their was no wmd's... so when hte US magically stands up and finds barrells of sarin, they would of all come on the screen screaming about an american coverup, about a framed setup..

And they would of had the 'right' information, the 'internal' knowledge on how to expose this as an american setup, instead of an iraqi coverup.

IE

'' hey look, we found tonnes of sarin gas ''

TO which the iraqi's reply:

'' Thats a lie, we dont have sarin gas, let the world TEST it, and please show me the devices and materials I created Sarin from ''

Darkblue sky,
your 2 points arent fitting.

IT wasnt EITHER alqaeda or America.

Alqaeda planned and pulled off the attack... this i have no doubt.
But America ALLOWED them too... they sat back and watched them do it, then when they did it.. they had the whole plan mapped out.

And plus..

The USA went on and on about stockpiles about haneous amounts of wmd's

If all of a sudden 1 barrell turns up, it would be suspicous.
Why would Iraq go to all those lengths to hide 1 barrel of sarin?
The USA would not of beeen able to get away with transporting tonnes of wmd's.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join