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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
2PacSade,

Interesting possibility. However, I think they (the conspirators) would have gotten more play out of finding/producing the WMD. If they wanted to go into Syria I think they would have by now IMO. I don't agree that it was better not to find them.

Re: Iran. They have another plausible reason to engage Iran if they want to: (uranium enrichment program).

It doesn't add up for me.

If you fake 9/11 to go to Iraq for WMD, I think you fake the WMD too.




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Only if you believe they faked 911.

They didnt have to fake it, alqaeda did all the leg work for them.

Its more plausable to see that iraq was always on the cards for the bush admin.
when they realised alqaeda were about to it, it removed so much hardwork for them.

they wouldnt need to convince the public if they hit.. they'd have there reason there and then.

they just needed a way to promote alqaeda with iraq.

hey.. they could supply them with wmd's, and instead of planes hitting us.. it'll be chemical laced bombs going off...

Iran had more opportunity to provide alqaeda with wmd's before Iraq...
yet we went into Iraq.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I have another theory. They wanted to not find any WMDs... you know why? Because it was the purpose of the war. The original reason to go to war in Iraq was the WMDs. So if they would have found them in the first weeks or anytime, the people would have asked to get out now of Iraq and the neo-cons wouldn't be able to hijack the iraqi oil industry and divide the country in 3 parts like they intended to before the war. To realise the division of the country, they have to start a civil war, that's exactly what is happening.

It's like the War on Terror, Ben Laden not find, the war on terror continue for the average joe. No WMDs, the war in Iraq continue. Even if some believe that WMDs were found in Iraq.

The benefit from the corporation? Oil, division of Iraq in 3 parts, civil war, money in arms and defense, ambassy in Bagdad worth 1 trillion... $$$ + strategic emplacement against Syria and Iran, elemination of a ``threat`` in the region.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Only if you believe they faked 911.


Correct.

It's very interesting that this thread doesn't seem to be attracting many of the folks who are convinced 9/11 was staged, or an inside job.

We've heard from those who say 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and from those who say planting WMD wouldn't work.

But almost nothing from anyone who thinks both are plausible/and possible.

Hmmm.

Except for Vitchillo.



[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Its a tough situation, people either have to jump o nthe bandwagon saying

'' your governments curropt ''

or

'' your all psycho conspiracy nuts ''

My feelings are widely known,

the government allowed 911 to happen, to give them a reason to invade iraq, to provide their corporate friends with a major cash cow.
They'd never of sent their troops into a major war of wmd's.
They needed something possibly plausable,
Ensure the media spins it the right way, and the words spoken can be denied.
Never state anything, never provide anything that can be proven.

IE
how many people believed the government stated a link between saddam and Iraq?
prolly almost everyone

But they didnt STATE their was a link, they used their words to amazingly maniuplate peopels understanding.

Thats why they came out and said '' we never stated their was a link ''
and thats true.. they gave us 99% of the ability.. we put it together in our heads.. they just moulded it for us.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

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.


Secondary Device.

Secondary Device.

Secondary Device.

That device doesn't necessarily HAVE TO BE an explosion bud.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:27 PM
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?

[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]


I think because the world knew the truth (other governments) so it'd be a bid harder to bypass just not the reasons for going into Iraq but the WMDs as well when the inspecters didn't really believe he had any.

But I guess it just depends who you ask and what you've read.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

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.


Start posting on the 9/11 forum more often if you have a nice spectrum of insight to offer saying 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, honestly, you give the idea that there isn't any valid proof from anything.

I'm waiting...



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
1. holographic planes, explosives, remote flying all that bs is nothing but bs.


Those are the more rather ridiculous theories.
I'm sure you know that.

By the way, Iraq NEVER made as much progress from their point of being in 1990 when we went into Kuwait to liberate it. If they DID INDEED pose SUCH A HUGE threat now, then why didn't we invade them then? Sarin Gas isn't some new "OMG IRAQ HAS WMDS" type of hype, they had it in the past, we knew.

But I guess to each his own. If you really don't want to believe anything suspicious (which I believe investigations (pre-9/11) into "terrorist activities" involving the Saudis etc and into Osama Bin Laden, having been blocked or dismissed) is enough evidence of some sort of complicity then enjoy your shell of reality.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar


Secondary Device.

Secondary Device.

Secondary Device.

That device doesn't necessarily HAVE TO BE an explosion bud.


I know I said I didnt want this thread to morph into a technical debate about the collapse of the bldgs, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you mean by a secondary device?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

By the way, Iraq NEVER made as much progress from their point of being in 1990 when we went into Kuwait to liberate it. If they DID INDEED pose SUCH A HUGE threat now, then why didn't we invade them then? Sarin Gas isn't some new "OMG IRAQ HAS WMDS" type of hype, they had it in the past, we knew.


I'm sure you know the real concern was that they were enriching uranium. Don't forget for many years the UN inspectors were prohibited form certain installations, then expelled completely, then allowed back in after yet another UN resolution. Who knows what occured while the UN was out of the country. I only say this to point out Sarin wasnt the only, or even primary concern.

Additionally, I dont think it would have been impossible to get a hundred kilos of enriched Uranium into Iraq and tag it on them. There may have been alot of doubt and suspicion, but no more than exists surrounding 9/11.



[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
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.


Is it possible for you to actually do some research before you make such claims?....

Vitchilio, this is like the third time that you keep making this exact claim, and even after someone else or I present evidence to the contrary, you come in one of the forums, again some months later, making the same false claims....

Lets actually present the facts shall we?.....


Our organization did a study of Saddam's pre-Gulf War suppliers a few year back. We discovered that Germany garnered fully half the total sales. In fact, just before the Gulf War, Germany was selling complete, ready-to-operate poison gas plants to Iraq and Libya at the same time. The rest of the world divided the remaining half of Iraq's purchases. The Swiss, who have an unreasonably good reputation in the world, placed second in the sweepstakes with about 8% of sales (specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines and electrical discharge machines found at nuclear weapon sites; procurement of missile parts and supervision of missile plant construction; equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade). In third place, with 4% each, Italy and France scored a tie.
......................
Will our troops find caches of poison gas, or even be hit by it on the battlefield? If so, German and French companies will be mainly to blame. In the 1980's, the German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec combined to furnish millions of dollars' worth of sensitive equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year. These companies had to know what the specialized glass-lined vessels they peddled were to be used for. It is insufferable that, like Pontius Pilate, Germany and France now wash their hands of the whole affair, and even chastise others for cleaning up the mess their companies helped create.

And how would the poison gas be carried? A gas doesn't stream through the ether by itself to reach a target. A specially prepared munition has to deliver it. Iraq admits that in the 1980's it bought more than 3,000 chemical-ready aerial bombs from Spain, more than 8,000 chemical-ready artillery shells from Italy and Spain, and more than 12,000 chemical-ready rocket warheads from Italy and Egypt. Most of these munitions remain unaccounted for. If our troops take casualties from a gas attack, they will have been inflicted by an international consortium of reckless suppliers.

www.iraqwatch.org...



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 07:23 PM
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.



Really?...

and who made that conclusion, and what are the reasons this conclusion was reached?...

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Darkblue, if you go along with the premise that one of the reasons for 9/11 was to invade Iraq I see the situation as this. One is an event planned in complete secrecy and executed with plenty of smoke and mirrors.

The other action is far more difficult you cannot just plant WMDs in an uncontrolled environment. Such weapons will have a history and a paper trail as to the source of the base components that could easily be traced. Couple that with the weapons inspectors in the country on and off for years would make it difficult to suddenly find WMDs of any size or quantity. Dont forget it was the West that was supplying Saddam with the technology and its history is known.

The perpatrators of 9/11 would not need too plant WMD's in Iraq because they knew their cover story would work and as the war progressed in Iraq and it looked like we were winning the Patriots and supporters soon forgot about finding no weapons and the mission statement changes to one of bringing Democracy to Iraq.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure Saddam bought weapons from US in the 80s, after all they needed them to fight Iran and the biggest supplier of weapons in the world is USA.

External Image

By mid-82, Iran was winning the war and the US didn't wanted to see Iran win... so they supplied weapons to Iraq.

Source


We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW(chemical weapons) capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary.


Washington Post

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.



When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.



A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.




In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports.


So the US government, along with the german and the british are all guilty of giving WMDs and chemicals/biologicals vital componments to Iraq, that killed iranians, kurds and iraqis.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I am one who believes that the government was definately involved in 911.

Your question is why, if the government was so SMART to do 911 and fool a vast majority of the American and World population, did they not just plant the WMDs?

This is a good question.

The following may not be such a good answer, but I will make a effort.

They could not plant all the WMDs that Collen Powell stated in his address to the U.N. without the reality of being exposed doing it. When that address is researched. Powell stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq had these weapons he stated and that American intellegence knew where they were. He even showed images and maps.

Now this address was made after the events of 911 which left very little time to plant evidence. It was a close timeline even to get the war movement into action to move into Iraq on their accelerated schedule.

I do not think the sole reason for invading Iraq was oil and money, though I think those in power dont mind getting either as a benefit.

If you are still reading this please let me share what I think may be the motives for 911 and Iraq. After all there is nothing any of us can do but speculate.

The bombing of the twin towers senario was probably originally thought about many years ago by people high up in our government, more than likely at the exectutive level all the way up to the president.

Im sure that at this level our national security is discussed and what dangers exist for America around the world. The area that had the greatest amount of ability to inflict economic and radical military damage to America was the Middle East.

The discussion evolved into what actions could be taken to secure America from these dangers. The only answer was to establish a military presence in the region. This would include land bases and ports of access to fuel these bases with supplies.
The ideal location would be a central strategic point in the region. This could very well be Iraq. All potential enemies would be in striking range for a military assult, so long as we had a supply route and way to deliver the needed supplies and fuel.

A new question arises of how to get a large operational military force into the region. There were not any of the countries that would allow this.

The answer would be for America to show Just Cause to bring a full military operation into the region. Now Im sure all kinds of ideas were raised as how to do this, but the only answer that would work would be that America was defending herself against a violent and dangerous enemy. One from that region.One so bad that the people of America would be willing to go to war against. One that had such a significant immediate danger to the American people and their children in their own homes.
One that would strike fear in Americans on their own soil.

A spectacular, unforgetable, horrible,visible event. One that would immediately galvanize the population of America, and show Just Cause to the world.

The twin towers were symbolic of America, and the destruction of the buildings and the loss of American life would/could be the catalyst for an invasion into the middle east to establish military operations. The long term planning of the main event would allow for all the work to be performed to execute the actions planned. Over the course of time the original plan could be modified to meet the needs of current times, but the main exhibit would not change. The Pentagon could be a added element, as well as Blg 7.

The 911 incident was the time chosen to execute the preplanned actions, possilbly because of Irans nuclear capablities evolving. The Iraq WMD story was developed to give the Just Cause. The preplanting of evidence in a hostile country would have risked a high probability of being exposed. The long term work on the twin towers would have been done in a time frame that would not have drawn suspicion, and done in a stealth manner to make the work almost invisible to everyone including general inspectors. If anyone along the way discovered the "work", Im sure they were persuaded to ignore what was found[wink,wink].

The timing of the destruction of the bulidings was planned to cause the least amount of civilian deaths, but enough to bring forth emotions. Had 50,000 Americans lost their lives in the collapse of the buildings, Americans would have demanded a "aggresive military campain", one that accepted a lot of collateral damage to others. This would not have served the purpose. America could easily destroy the whole middle eastern region using non nuclear weapons. The goal was a long term military operation, that did not completly destroy the economics of the region.

The speculation could go on and on.

I apologize for the length of this, but I felt you deserved a insight into one possibility for the Iraq mess.

Again, its all only speculation. And Im sure it will be disected and destroyed by many.






posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
WolfPack 51 - Your speculative theory is as good as any I've heard and much more plausible than many. I don't have very far to go to get to where I could believe the US govt knew about 9/11 in general terms (not specific) and allowed it to occur. Further, I agree wholeheartedly that there were numerous unstated goals for establishing a significant and permanent US presence in the Middle East. 9/11 presented the opportunity.

At the same time, I believe the decision makers also thought some positives for the region might be a beneficial side effect.

I will not, however, ever be convinced 9/11 was planned and carried out by the US government or with its full knowledge and approval.





[edit on 11/16/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I accept your disbelief.

All one can do is keep an open mind. Use ones own common sense to evaluate what has happened. Weigh the arguments and the conclusions and make a educated decision as what is real 100%. What is real 50%. And what is totally impossible.

In reality, almost anything is possible. Many things are not probable.

I have many theories to 911, some are just not probable. I cant accept the fact of both buildings falling in so short a time frame in near perfect form, without the EXACT same damage. This evidence has been stated over and over on both sides of the argument. I therefore rationalized a senario that has happened in theory in history. Manipulation of the masses by a government for national reasons.

I wish we could know the real truth, but we will never get the whole truth.

Thanks for reading the long post I left.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
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?


Because it would require the US to have employed people to reinvent the wheel, and anything found over and above the technology available in Iraq would have been a dead giveaway.

You see, whilst the principles behind such weapons are established, the construction of them is not. Parts are machined to different tolerances, wiring cradles are labelled/coloured in differing ways etc.

So its easier to lie and say that they were there and be "mistaken", because that way its harder to prove than finding a "weapon" and the UN inspectors who would be asked to verify it - who aren't the idiots the right-wing US media would have you believe saying "hold on, thats an American part" or "the Iraqi's don't work this way".



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
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?


Holographic planes?.... Black helicopters?..... Remote control thermite bombs...... is this the new James Bond?

I don't think it's fair to lump every 9/11 theory, no matter wacky and left-field, all together - People who question the validity of the official 9/11 story don't all theorise the same events.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join