spearhead's 911

Was the US government taken for ransom in 9/11?

Just a theory... I've been looking at a lot of threads and there are a whole world of theoriesand bits and piece on this that and the other but hardly an official complete story of actual events, motives & resolution to the big 5... who, what, when, where & why.

We know it was an inside job. We know a lot of it was staged (ie. the pentagon). We think it was for oil, war on terror, fear mongering and such.

A complete other story is what is needed. I don't have to the knowledge to create it. Give it too me! The internet is so full of BS i'd prefer info from the knowers.

My theory, though hard to support, is the government knew there was a new government imerging and gaining strength in secret. They needed to appear to be in control and on 9/11/01 the "black government"(not a racist slander) took control of the U.S.A though ransom and tyranny....


all right experts... im blindfolded, on my knees and ready to be shot down!

reading this now, i wonder why i drink so much bourbon... this is really not something im good at.

i ask a mod to fire this one up....

Kind of funny you say this because it is definitely something I've considered personally. When I saw Farenheit 9/11 and Moore uses that shot of Bush in the elementary school to ask what was he thinking for 8 minutes or something, it looked to me like he was thinking "Oh Sh#t...whodunnit, not how will i get away with it. In my mind, its pretty obvious that he was clueless about many aspects of 9/11 and so I truly believe that Jr. was not in on the planning of it. However, he was absolutely, positively, 100% undeniably in on the cover-up after the fact!

So what does that mean? It means that he had to hide the truth. Which is exactly what happened in the case of JFK, and over time that proved to be a cover-up of the involvement of CIA and political figures. He must have been thinking about his own father's involvement in the CIA and "that whole bay of pigs thing" and it had to have crossed his mind that Poppy could be in on it. W doesn't seem to be the mastermind sort, maybe that is his genius, but I think many more likely culprits surround him on all sides and that in the end he is nothing more than a tool.

Just look, all of the guys around him, the big players like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gates, Greenspan, etc were big players in the 80's & 90's with Poppy's 12-year reign in the White House. As Moore showed in his film, the Bush's and Bin Laden's go waaaay back, hell Poppy was having breakfast with one of them on 9/11 which I'm sure is just coincidence. What was it a whole 3 or 4 hours after initial impact that the gov't, citing CIA sources of course, started blaming Bin Laden for the tragedy? Then of course it was necessary to FLY HIS RELATIVES OUT OF THE COUNTRY while all other flights were grounded so they couldn't be questioned.

I could keep going but I've got to go to work. The bottom line is that many people in the gov't were obviously not in on it, but others obviously were. The more you look at the past blunders of the CIA, especially JFK, the more you recognize the playbook is all I'm saying. From the initial partitioning of false information, control of the crime scenes, control of the investigative team, the myriad of disinfo and eventual media blackout, and of course the stigma mainstream media now associates with any "truther"......this seems to be an almost identical case to JFK's cover-up! And if someone was powerful enough to kill the President of the United States in broad daylight on a crowded street and get away with it then....why wouldn't they be able to kill a few thousand common folk with new high tech weapons, who would stop them? Oh yeah, war commensed after both occasions and I believe the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq/Afgahnistan are obvious to anyone.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by budaruskie]

Originally posted by budaruskie
Kind of funny you say this because it is definitely something I've considered personally. When I saw Farenheit 9/11 and Moore uses that shot of Bush in the elementary school to ask what was he thinking for 8 minutes or something, it looked to me like he was thinking "Oh Sh#t...whodunnit, not how will i get away with it. In my mind, its pretty obvious that he was clueless about many aspects of 9/11 and so I truly believe that Jr. was not in on the planning of it. However, he was absolutely, positively, 100% undeniably in on the cover-up after the fact!

I agree. However, why does this necessarily mean it has to be a coverup of some secret gov't plot to sneak hordes of gov't ninjas into the WTC, plant invisible explosives, and use hijacked aircraft as a cover story? All of that crap is coming entirely from you people.

It would seem to me that if the attack was due to sheer gov't incompetence, the desire to cover up would be just as strong, but it wouldn't be out of loyalty to some secret shadowy force lurking behind the scenes. It would be out of fear of being exposed as being the one whose incompetence allowed 3000 people to get killed and thus becoming the most hated person in the world. If, for example, you were a gov't bureaocrat who found a warning of an imminent terrorist attack dated the day before 9/11 lying forgotten beneath a pizza box in the corner of your office, would YOU come forward and admit it? If you wouldn't, then you have your answer as to what the cover up is.

The difference between what I think the cover up is and what you think the cover up is, is that I can give you all the examples you want of sheer gov't incompetence. Can you show me even one example where anyone was able to sneak into an occupied building and rig it with controlled demolitions without anyone noticing?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I agree. However, why does this necessarily mean it has to be a coverup of some secret gov't plot to sneak hordes of gov't ninjas into the WTC, plant invisible explosives, and use hijacked aircraft as a cover story?

You're 100% correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

All of that crap is coming entirely from you people.

Easy turbo, you don't know me! And as a matter of fact, you're wrong about that. If one were so inclined, one could find legitimate articles proving that the members of many foreign gov'ts are very skeptical of the official story, Japan is a good place to start. Also, you could watch this film, made outside the U.S.

Google Video Link

It would seem to me that if the attack was due to sheer gov't incompetence, the desire to cover up would be just as strong, but it wouldn't be out of loyalty to some secret shadowy force lurking behind the scenes. It would be out of fear of being exposed as being the one whose incompetence allowed 3000 people to get killed and thus becoming the most hated person in the world. If, for example, you were a gov't bureaocrat who found a warning of an imminent terrorist attack dated the day before 9/11 lying forgotten beneath a pizza box in the corner of your office, would YOU come forward and admit it? If you wouldn't, then you have your answer as to what the cover up is.

The difference between what I think the cover up is and what you think the cover up is, is that I can give you all the examples you want of sheer gov't incompetence.

I cannot disagree at all with the level of incompetence rampant throughout our gov't and no doubt it was at the very least a contributing factor. However, it is mine and the opinion of many others including military personnel, that the events that took place would by necessity require the help of individuals inside the gov't, intelligence, and media apparatus. Sheer incompetance is a cover story, a con, a cop-out, and certainly not the truth!

Can you show me even one example where anyone was able to sneak into an occupied building and rig it with controlled demolitions without anyone noticing?

No, I cannot with certainty do that. However, I can point out that our CIA and possibly Moussad have the largest budgets of any countries on Earth to carry out what they call covert operations, which only a fool would deny includes explosive or demolition work. Oh, and the very definition of covert (according to dictionary.com) is : concealed, secret, disguised. That would go a long way towards explaining why I cannot show how they did it.

Ball is in your court...

reply to post by budaruskie


i completely agree with you ruskie.... i don't think Dave is getting the actual point though....

I agree. However, why does this necessarily mean it has to be a coverup of some secret gov't plot to sneak hordes of gov't ninjas into the WTC, plant invisible explosives, and use hijacked aircraft as a cover story? All of that crap is coming entirely from you people.
previously posted by GoodOlDave

not, at any stage did anyone mention the above^

The more i think on it is that at government initiated the cover up.... as budaruskie stated, but it was not necessarily carried out by the US government spooks. It's not about how the towers fell or if they were really planes or any such trivial points.

It is about who wanted something out of the government that the government wasn't prepared to give.
What was it? Who was it? When was the deadline? Where were they? Why didn't they co-operate? Were there warnings? Why didn't the government go public.

(For example only.)>>>>
IMO Moussad is a good place to start. They would have known Bush Seniour was in cahoots with Bin Laden. They would have known a conspiracy would be inevitable. They would have planned 50 years ahead. Maybe no-one in the Mid-East would sell Isreal oil. Perhaps Isreal needed the US in the Middle East. And perhaps they knew how to get them there...

Many people believe Bush Jnr was a bad guy...

There are many a circumstance where Bush has slipped up, apparently exposing the truth!

Perhaps he has been trying to drop hints as opposed to slip of the tongue. It is clear after JFK's mind blowing experience, not even the president of the USA is safe against what ever is orchestrating this whole show. Therefore should Bush have wanted to speak the truth he couldn't through fear of his own life, undoubtedly his family and possibly thousands more innocent civilians.....

perhaps...

reply to post by spearhead


I see your point, the leaders of gov't being held over a barrel could explain a lot. But you must ask the question, why send the military on a wild goose chase in the desert when you could send them after the real culprits? Of course, that brings up the possibility that they don't know who the real culprits are (highly unlikely IMO) but it doesn't seem as though Afgahnistan would be the first place to look, does it? So the last possibility is they do know who the culprits are, but refuse to tell us for some reason. What secret would require our gov't to hide the truth from the public, fight unnecessary wars to no end, and continue to allow itself to be blackmailed?

Another way of looking at it, and this has been done many times here before, is to ask who has benefited? A short list of those who benefited that I know of could be: Israel, the Fed, military industrial complex, U.S. gov't as a whole, all U.S. law enforcement agencies, private military contractors (blackwater etc), Halliburton, Titan, airports security firms. Certainly there are more but I think that covers those who got immediate (1-2 yrs) returns from 9/11.

I think it is prudent to ponder whether or not the financial meltdown that is occuring has any connection to the events of 9/11 and/or does someone once again have the gov't over a barrel? The current events seem to fit the proposed theory better in my opinion. Reason being, the gov't officials really don't even pretend to have answers. Every member of congress (except Ron Paul), every pundit, even the President and his Secretaries aren't offering any solutions. They speak exclusively in platitudes or speculative wishing and always seem to focus on spreading the blame instead of fixing the problem. Amazingly, the gov't has done absolutely nothing to relieve the financial problems, have not publicly identified the real culprits, and have only exacerbated the existing problems through an insane policy "if its broke, break the sh!t out of it, but don't fix it!"

Now, who has benefited from that? The Fed, the banks, those wishing for more centralized control over world financial markets.....sorry, gotta go. Will continue to check back later!


[edit on 3/4/2010 by budaruskie]

reply to post by budaruskie

Every member of congress (except Ron Paul), every pundit, even the President and his Secretaries aren't offering any solutions. They speak exclusively in platitudes or speculative wishing and always seem to focus on spreading the blame instead of fixing the problem.

I think the reason for this would undoubtedly be the two party system. Demo and Cons.

No matter what resolution the acting government comes up with the opposition must oppose it. This makes getting anything done near impossible because the moment the opposition agree's with anything they almost lose any chance of regaining power at the next election... but that is getting off topic.

You stated the following...

is to ask who has benefited? .... Israel, the Fed, military industrial complex, U.S. gov't as a whole, all U.S. law enforcement agencies, private military contractors (blackwater etc), Halliburton, Titan, airports security firms

The question that now comes to mind is which individual body profits from there? Who gets the advantage when all these industries get ahead?
I hope you know the answer... because i'm not even American and I sure as hell don't know.
It does appear that the major oil corporations get the advatage of Iraq, the CIA get the advantage in Afghanistan but above all of these who is better off when there better off?

When it comes to being bent over the barrel I believe Obama was supposed to be elected. He is going to play the ball and when Presidents don't play the ball, they get martyred...

Are there any major changes the Bush administration made in favour of the people and not in favour of the corporations before 911? I'm saying that perhaps something his administration did was not in the overall plan made by those really running the show and therefore bringing about the fury of 9/11...



[edit on 4/3/10 by spearhead]

I think the reason for this would undoubtedly be the two party system. Demo and Cons....No matter what resolution the acting government comes up with the opposition must oppose it.

Well it is a symptom of the system, but it is not a two-party system. If it were, then the opposing party would at least from time to time repeal those very laws it rallied against, when it got the majority. But of course, that never happens, the American attention span is extremely short an doesn't require them to do anything but keep up the sharade.

When it comes to being bent over the barrel I believe Obama was supposed to be elected. He is going to play the ball and when Presidents don't play the ball, they get martyred...

Man, to not be an American you sure have a firm grip of American politics. Truer words were never spoken.

Are there any major changes the Bush administration made in favour of the people and not in favour of the corporations before 911?

Uhhhh.....no. He took the longest vacation in the history of the Presidency after poppy and his fellow spooks helped him rig the election. Since you aren't American let me give you the quick and dirty version of the 2000 Presidential election. Gore (who also sucks satan's ____) actually had more votes than Bush, but of course that doesn't matter here in the U.S. Instead, what matters is which states you win the popular vote in, because they all have different numbers of electoral votes, proportionate to population. To make a long story short, somehow...someway the election hinged on the electoral vote of one state, Florida. Guess who the top executive politician in the state of Florida is......Jr's brother Jeb Bush. What an amazing coincidence! It has also been proven that although he supposedly "won" the state by less than 1000 votes, someone (hmmm...I wonder who) made the decision to not count over 100,000 votes as well has a whole multitude of other election frauds which erased votes that were counted. Hell, maybe you are on to something, maybe Gore had something to do with 9/11!

reply to post by budaruskie


It feels like running in circles...
The 2000 election was rigged so Bush would attain power, perhaps he was needed in that position to allow pops to nurture the environment needed for 911 to take place!
It would appear if Gore had played a roll it went unnoticed. He has been a key player in driving the global warming cash for energy scam which has directly affected the cost of oil!

Bush's war on terror forces increase in cost of oil!
Gore war on carbon forces cost in cost of energy!

And your right, the government focuses on keeping eyes on the ball. So we don't see the real deal. Gore may well have played a roll...