This was good, but I think it misses one point - that the Muslim Brotherhood - the start of all this - was created by Hitler near the end of WWII. You need to link all this to the Nazi regime and those in the current US government that have close ties to the Nazi's. I think then you will start to get the whole true larger picture to come to light.

I don't enjoy the implications you're making that anyone who thinks there might have been a SADM employed at the WTC lacks common sense. There is a wealth of evidence which could certainly be indicative of nuclear demolitions device, including elevated levels of tritium and rivers of molten steel weeks later in the debris that can only be acheived by temperatures found in a nuclear reaction, just to name a few.

What if you're the one barking up the wrong tree with the whole idea of Islamic Fundamentalism being the culprit, would you feel equally insulted if I said you lacked common sense for believing that? Are you avoiding the inside job angle on purpose because it seems to me that you're espousing the same story Uncle Sam is trying to hand us about box cutter weilding super pilots, stupified air defenses, the cave dwelling Osama Tim Osman Bin Laden Boogey Man, and building demolishing fires.
Common Sense indeed, thank god most folks have enough of it too see past that propaganda.

This is an ATS 'premium'?!? It's a subtle swipe at conspiracy theorists IMO.

Firstly to address twitchy, NGC hasn’t said Islamic terrorism was behind 9/11. He told a story, a piece of history, some background information about how Islamic terrorism came about with the *help* USG. This still leaves us with a lot of options for “what happened next”.

Some possible ideas are:
1. Al Qaeda attacked America without any help – the Official story
2. Al Qaeda is a front with links to the USG. They carried out the attacks together
3. The USG has enough links to Al Qaeda to have had knowledge of the attacks, and did nothing.
4. The USG carried out the attacks and *planted* evidence that it was Al Qaeda.
5. The attacks were not carried out by anyone in Al Qaeda or the USG. Anti-Semitists believe it was all the Jews (as they believe everything evil was carried out by them).
6. The attacks didn’t happen, I am the only person who exists, and you’re all a figment of my imagination, blah blah blah.

What we are looking for here is absolute truth. There is very little that we can know for absolute certain about the day itself. Therefore the more we know about the events before and after, the well documented military, economic, and relational history, the better our ground work for understanding the piecemeal information we have from the day itself.

I apologise for the emotional nature of what I say next, it is not evidence, but a point of view. To nunny and everyone else (mainly IRL) who tells me that the American government “would not” have carried out the 9/11 attacks because it’s simply too awful a thing to have done, I want to reply:

Everytime I hear those words, I believe more strongly that 9/11 was an inside job. Simply because the more people there are out there who “cannot possibly believe that such an evil thing could happen” the easier it was for them to do it and the less likely it was that “all good men” would stand together and speak the truth.

Economics can justify some terrible, terrible things. And I am quite certain that if the USG was behind it, it wasn’t because they are evil, it is just that they honestly believed it was in the best interests for them and their country. (This is BS, but did anyone else watch series 5 and 24 and feel certain someone was trying to get a message out there?)

Finally dk3000 said:
“The manipulations of war have little to do with 9/11- which was purely a financial decision which could also be milked for WAR value by support from an unsuspecting and terrified public.”

9/11 was the turning point. The day the US and the UK stood side by side as brothers and chose to make war with those who would threaten our freedom. The day in fact that the freedoms went away and the day that the real terrorists grew some balls, so to speak. Since that day terrorist attacks have become more and more frequent. The USG and media have farmed the fear unbelievably well to fuel patriotism for the war. I’m glad to be in the UK where this week Gordon Brown announced a tonne of anti-terrorist measures and half of us went “oh yeah... terrorists, I had forgotten about those”.

Again I sincerely apologise for the fact that half of this post is mainly opinion. But I’ll happily tell you why I care so damned much. Simply because I have been asked to work on anti-terrorist projects and I’d like to know who I’m really up against.

I hope over the next few weeks to read up on some of the economic arguments and present whatever truths I find. In the mean time, keep up the good work.

Originally posted by ErisDS
5. The attacks were not carried out by anyone in Al Qaeda or the USG. Anti-Semitists believe it was all the Jews (as they believe everything evil was carried out by them).

Would it be antisemitic to question the cheering and dancing Israelis with cash, cameras and box cutters who were given a free pass home no questions asked, later claiming that they were there to 'document the event'? Would it be antisemtic to bring up the fact that Mossad had knowledge of and quite literally followed these hijackers around prior to to 9-11 for years? Would it be antisemtic to mention the forewarnings received by Odigo employees before the attacks, the "Israeli Art students" who were casing military installations, or the five part special on Israeli espionage Fox News was running that was jerked off the air by the ADL right after 9-11?
Anytime I see the word antisemitic get thrown into 9-11 research, it makes me wonder if the term hasn't become something of a protection racket for zionists. Actually if we examine motives for 9-11, it would be pretty silly to leave them off the long list of suspects.

Edit:

Originally posted by ErisDS
Firstly to address twitchy, NGC hasn’t said Islamic terrorism was behind 9/11.

Odd that considering the title of this premium thread here is
"The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism"
It's great research, and more power to NGC, he's a great ATS'er, but it's the suggestion that a lack of common sense is behind the alternative theories, well that I take great exception to and gives this thread an unpleasant taste of spin.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy
What if you're the one barking up the wrong tree with the whole idea of Islamic Fundamentalism being the culprit, would you feel equally insulted if I said you lacked common sense for believing that?

Hey twitch...

{disclaimer: the following post is my opinion only, and in no way should be construed as official opinion or editorial direction of AboveTopSecret.com}

I'm not seeing the article in the same light.

I'll bet if I twisted your arm long enough, you'd agree there is a dangerously high level of "9/11 Truthers" (or conspiracy theorist in general) who latch onto to specific theories with specific details, then spend their time searching out supporting evidence and ignoring contradictory information.

If... and this is one of the great big giant "ifs" of our time... we're to gain any traction in establishing "9/11 is an inside job" will it really be through a dizzying array of sometimes conflicting minutiae that collectively describes a "forced demolition" scenario? After all this time, the only traction all of the videos, speeches, rallies, events, books, protests, and online chatter has produced is that of an irritated general public. (Ever talk to a "normal" about 9/11 truth?)

The problem we have is that, because of the "truth movement," 9/11 conspiracy speculation and research has followed the patterns of anti-establishment activism... where the majority of those involved (or at least the most vocal) compile ever-increasing lists of things to be angry about. The goal "feels" like it's geared toward increasing the number of angry people, rather than discovering the truth.

So maybe... just maybe... if nothing has "stuck" yet, maybe it's time to shift gears, change tactics, find another road, reshuffle the deck... or whatever other cliche fits.

If a refocused effort discovers cover-ups and foul play in the goings on of US-sponsored covert entities that trained, funding, and "aimed" the very enemy now blamed in the "war on terrorism," and we get broader and deeper investigations with real teeth... ... ... so? Objective achieved, right?

I had the distinct honor of sharing several pints of Guinness with of this era's greatest conspiracy researchers and writers, Jim Marrs. And yes, he has some interesting and surprisingly plausible ideas about the use of shaped nuclear devices, but he also said, " I don't want to be right about any of this." And neither do I. And neither should we all.

However, history teaches us we might be right. History also teaches us that previous conspiracies and cover-ups have deep historical roots. While there are a myriad of details related to the events in NYC and Washington that remain questionable, a deep and troubling conspiracy can still be uncovered without proving any of those details. Watergate was proven by following the money, Iran Contra was uncovered by following the money (profits of Florida-based drug runners getting paid to send weapons to Nicaragua), and 9/11 conspiracies will likely be proven in the same way.

So those who consider the possibilities of conspiracies within the events of 9/11 must expand their thinking into all areas... history as well as mysteries.

post by never_tell
"I do agree. The "Powers" of the world have never cared about the common good. America sought to change that, but then straightaway started their own aristocracy and class system.
But I'm more interested in any ideas you want to put in the pot as concerns the topic of this thread."



i'm not sure that I have anything new to add... it's a topic that has been research to death IMO... what I would say is that regimes with a sense of history would be quick to recognize the power of turning your 'enemy" into your "friends"... throughout history scapegoats have been utilized... in this case, Christians resurrect the "holy wars" in order to invade and protect their own kind.... stir the pot and have reason for police action.... Persians willing to die for their cause is nothing new.... they were some of the largest armies of the ancient world.... I heard a fantastical story once about heathens that needed "fixing".... off to Jerusalem went "God's Knights"to save the world...
.... did I fail to mention the "olive oil" and trade roots?

btw, I'm not sure America did try to change "that"... IMO it was just a shift in power... fueding cousins, that's all....

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

it's all about history... we don't think today's leaders just make this stuff up do we? if only they were that clever...would be a "different" world

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

Originally posted by CharlesMartel


If the CIA was really behind all this, they why did the Plame/Wilson Affair happen to try and discredit the Bush Administration?

Seems to me that Rove orchestrated the outing of Valerie Plame as revenge for Wilson exposing the yellowcake rouse. Did I miss something there? Perhaps that's why Rove is going to be "spending more time with family."

Anyway, fantastic thread OP. Starred, flagged and absolutely glued to the responses. I hope that we can stay on theme. I know a lot of people are passionate about their beliefs, but the historical context is, by far, the best starting point for coming to the truth. We shouldn't be distracted from honest research by emotional arguments.

The truth is out there, and in many cases it is in plain sight. To me, there is already enough solid evidence to warrant serious criminal investigations. We must keep pushing for the garbage corporate media and our lame representative government to pursue the leads.

Example? Keep writing your representatives and Nancy Pelosi to support HR 333, Kucinich's move for impeachment of Darth Cheney. There are legal ways to go about this and we are lazily ignoring them. I have been mailing letters every other day. If they get 10,000 then they may get the point. What if we could expose the bastards? It's worth a try. Here is some info to get your message across:

NOT MY QUOTE:

Nancy Pelosi said if she receives 10,000 handwritten letters she will put impeachment back on the table. Cindy Sheehan says if you send them in care of her campaign office the letters will be accurately counted.

The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
(The correct salutation is Dear Madam Speaker.)

Cindy for Congress
RE: Impeach Dick Cheney
1260 Mission Blvd
San Francisco, Ca 94103

----

It's worth a moment of your time. Bring it into the spotlight, folks.

Thanks



[edit on 16-11-2007 by flashback]

{disclaimer: the following post is my opinion only, and in no way should be construed as official opinion or editorial direction of AboveTopSecret.com}

Originally posted by twitchy
The reason I think nothing has 'stuck' is because the mainstream media, and anybody who could or would have the power to do something about it are considering it a cased closed, because of the Islamic Terrorism Label we were handed.

Here's where I know your assumption is incorrect. I've spoken with several reporters and mainstream media people... the issue is not a lack of interest or concern over potential conspiracy angles in the entire 9/11 story. The issue is a genuine concern that if they engage in "9/11 conspiracy or cover-up" research, they will be painted as "lunatic 9/11 truther anarchists" and immediately discredited and their career ruined. There are even those in the trenches of MSM who feel the angry fanaticism of the "truthers" has been shaped specifically to prevent journalists with credentials from digging into the issue "Watergate style."

Well according to the OP's opening then, Mr. Marrs simply lacks common sense, and that's my problem with this thread.

Actually... I tend to agree to some extent with a "lack of common sense." While it may be more exciting to speculate on exotic causes for specific oddities of the 9/11 events, discarding avenues of investigation that have proven success in the past does indeed lack common sense. Don't you think so?

Perhaps my tendency to focus on historical connections put the "common sense" comment in different context.