This is What 9/11 Truth is Up Against.

Yes but the information was false. There were no WMDs, even after countless inspections, in fact, chief UN inspector, David Kay, after spending a year in Iraq working on this, he reported back to the President himself, "We were wrong" is the quote. We were wrong.

There were no WMDs, the war was started on false information. This war should not be. Look even CIA director, former, George Tenet, he even said himself, the intelligence was wrong, we were wrong, we knew it was wrong. In fact, back in 2003, Tenet was saying that intelligence will be "fixed" to support the war.

What a coincidence.

Its amazing, just a few short years before, the Bush Administration was saying how Iraq had no nuclear capabilities, they were not a threat, they were contained with the disarmament policy after the Gulf War.

Rice and Powell in 2001 say Iraq not a threat

Ridiculous. They gave the thumbs up for war right after 911, and they made sure the intelligence was fixed to gain support by the ignorant people who believe whatever theyre spoonfed.

Theyre laughing at you. They are laughing at you because you are buying their propaganda. Bush doesnt care for America, I think this video might prove it.

www.youtube.com...

George Bush badmouthing Americans, and badmouting America, how bout it?


[edit on 7-5-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Ridiculous. They gave the thumbs up for war right after 911, and they made sure the intelligence was fixed to gain support by the ignorant people who believe whatever theyre spoonfed.

Why didn't they spoonfeed us WMDs then?

The president's popularity started to wane as soon as it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq...and it hasn't really rebounded since.

If the whole point of 9/11 was to raise popular support for the war, why wouldn't the PNAC/Bush/et al seal the deal?

Why wouldn't they plant some WMDs in Iraq and then trot out a CNN camera to watch a bunch of Marines find them?

It would have been such an easy thing to do, and the fact that it WASN'T done seems to me to be pretty striking evidence against an all-knowing PNAC conspiracy.

Originally posted by EssedariusWhy didn't they spoonfeed us WMDs then?

There are several possible reasons.

Firstly, the justification had largely shifted from WMD to regime change by the time the invasion started. In fact, I suspect more people were pursuaded to support the invasion by this argument than by WMD.

Secondly, too many people, such as Hans Blix, had reported that there were no WMD. To have turned up some after the invasion would simply have invited sceptics to claim they had been planted. It was a no win situation.

Thirdly, biological agents can be 'fingerprinted' in order to determine their origin. Had they been planted, an independent inspection would have been required in order to add credibility to the find. They surely would have uncovered the fact that the sample was not of Iraqi origin.

Originally posted by coughymachine
...too many people, such as Hans Blix, had reported that there were no WMD.

...biological agents can be 'fingerprinted' in order to determine their origin.

Good points all.

But, wouldn't you agree, leaping over these hurdles would be small beans compared to what would have been pulled off at the WTC and Pentagon?

Originally posted by EssedariusWhy didn't they spoonfeed us WMDs then?

Yellow Cake.... Aluminum Tubes...

You, I and my cat were spoonfed....

Originally posted by Essedarius
Why didn't they spoonfeed us WMDs then?

The president's popularity started to wane as soon as it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq...and it hasn't really rebounded since.

I understand what you mean here, I used to have the same concern. The fact is they don't care about "president's popularity". They used our fears to push a war on iraq and now that they are there they don't need to invent WMDs. If they did need to invent WMDs to stay there you can bet they would have already invented them. But who knows what the future holds?

I think they are going to sell us all this as "republican incompetence" and bring out the dems when those two are the exact same thing - two wings of the same dragon, two puppets with the same hand up their asses.

I agree Pepe,it don't matter who is in the whitehouse,they are merely puppets.America is going to hell in a handbasket. edit:spelling

[edit on 7-5-2007 by crowpruitt]

Originally posted by EssedariusBut, wouldn't you agree, leaping over these hurdles would be small beans compared to what would have been pulled off at the WTC and Pentagon?

Firstly, that depends on what was actually done at the WTC and the Pentagon.

Secondly, the point I was trying to make is that there was really no need to plant them. The justification for war had long shifted away from WMD. Saddam and 9/11 had been linked in the minds of the American people if not explicitly by the words of the administration, and he did have a nasty habit of committing acts of genocide.

The truth is, those who supported the war did so for regime change. I had many a long debate with people at the time and those in support couldn't have cared less about WMD. And again, to reitterate, had they planted them, no one would have believed them anyway. It was a no-win situation and they took the line of least resistance. In my opinion.

Originally posted by yeti101
what motivation does the US government have for carrying out 9/11?

Why do the "debunkers" get to DERAIL EVERY FRICKING THREAD by TOTALLY and COMPLETLY changing the topic to one of their favorite DIVIDING questions?

What is the motive? Any answer, no matter how well founded is SPECULATION.
How did they get 3,000,000,000,000 people to hush?
It would have gone BOOM and the eyewitnesses who say it did are dumb.
It would have taken YEARS to rig the buildings.

...

Get your own thread. As a matter of fact there a THOUSANDS of them on here explaning various strong motives.

My sig line has one.