Here's what I think happened on 9/11

So I've noticed a huge amount of resistance from people while trying to convince them that 9/11 was a farce. It seems as though the more evidence that's presented to contradict the government's official story, the more people cling to it. People are completely unwilling to admit that they were manipulated.

After all of my research, I've come to the following conclusions:
1) The acts were carried out in ways that allowed the government to completely control the evidence.
2) The acts were carried out in such a way as to minimize casualties in every possible way.

With that, here's my theory of what happened that day:
It has been shown that many Wargames were going on the day of September 11th, including scrambling all identifiers on all aircraft in the air. Also, extra blips were added to the radars to further the confusion.

There never was a Flight 11, 77, 93, or 175; the government bribed (and/or threatened) the airlines to go along with their story. All of the crashes were faked with special effects. The extra planes were accounted for by the extra blips on the radar; so they were essentially ghost planes.

The 2 World Trade Center crashes were carried out by remotely controlled military planes (neither of the planes had any sort of commercial airline identifying marks). The Pentagon and Pennsylvania "crashes" were just detonated explosives with some carefully prepared evidence placed; this explains why such a lack of wreckage exists at these two sites. Keep in mind that the part of the Pentagon that was "hit" was the recently renovated wing; and nobody in the Pentagon was killed. The bombs were placed there during the renovation.

The crumbling of the World Trade Center buildings was also the work of well-placed explosives. These buildings had recently undergone a $1 billion renovation by Marvin Bush (George W. Bush's brother). Explosives were implanted as part of this "renovation".

The media were completely controlled by the FBI on this day. All of their information was provided directly from the FBI, including eyewitnesses, facts, etc. The threat always existed that if the media started speculating on other possibilities of what happened, or if they interviewed the wrong witnesses, they would be cut off from the official government story, and lose viewers. The government also had a lot of control over what camera angles were shown, as the majority of the local tv stations' antennas were blown up in the WTC, so the only footage we were ever shown that day of the 2nd plane hitting was from the worst possible angle (with the other building directly blocking view of the one being hit).

Meanwhile, several FBI agents were pushing the neo-con US government's agenda, such as this quote that always sticks with me, "It's great to live in such a free society, but having everything so free makes it very difficult for us to prevent events like this from happening. This is why things are really going to have to change after this".

Osama Bin Laden is just our fall-guy. We worked with him in defending Afghanistan from Russia back in the late 70's, and I'm led to believe that he either A) Still works for us or B) Is dead, and we're just using him as a scapegoat. Al Qaeda, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist. The videos of Bin Laden "confessing" could easily be archived footage from the 90's. I don't think he ever makes any specific mention of 9/11 or the World Trade Center in the videos (although in one he's quoted as such...but I think this is fake and needs to be retranslated).

Anyway, it's very disturbing how brainwashed people are about these events. Any skepticism on what we were told is viewed as complete lunacy by the masses. 9/11 was a made-for-tv reality movie with all of the narrative and special effects provided for our viewing pleasure by the government.

reply to post by kiwasabi


Out of your entire post , I found only three words that I can agree with ...

'Brainwashed' and 'complete lunacy' .

fairly simple and concise-

good job of thinking

Interesting perspective. It would definitely show the government one thing: How the public would respond and how to deal with it. It would give them the ability to gauge how they would apply any propaganda against a quick information exchanging world.

I can not go along with this theory. It sounds to far fetched to be true. The sheer number of people that would have to be involved in mass murder is a beyond believable. A nice story though!

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

Out of your entire post , I found only three words that I can agree with ...

'Brainwashed' and 'complete lunacy' .

As in being brainwashed and being a lunatic?

You can relate?

There never was a Flight 11, 77, 93, or 175; the government bribed (and/or threatened) the airlines to go along with their story.

reply to post by kiwasabi



That I can't fathom. I agree and believe all four flights were drones....oh YES I do, but to get a bunch of 'nobodies' to cover this up, seems difficult if not impossible to swallow (unless there was some heavy duty brain manipulation/hypnoses in place!)


You know though....there's nothing we can do about any of this anyway.

Meanwhile, we have chemtrails, HAARP and now this oil spill.
We have the collapse of the US dollar, unemployment up and all hope, down

I'm not saying let's all become complacent and hold hand and sing the Coke Cola theme song...............................

but let's put this aside for now. We really have to. It's a side-show-freak-show to take away from the main act. And that's................all this crap that's going on RIGHT now.


Again, we'll never know the REAL facts about 9-11 (not now, based on the evidence and.... any possible ramifications that SHOULD ensue) so I think it's best to 'fix' these other current problems before we're doing the same thing......9 years from now all over again!

reply to post by kiwasabi


Out in the sun without your tin foil hat........

Originally posted by C11H17N2NaO2S
I can not go along with this theory. It sounds to far fetched to be true. The sheer number of people that would have to be involved in mass murder is a beyond believable. A nice story though!

Well, there are a ton of people on the government payroll. Essentially the defense department got bored since there ISNT ANYTHING TO DEFEND FROM, so they staged their own attack to justify two illegal wars. The US has a huge history of false flag operations, what's to say they wouldn't pull off the biggest one in history? Everything has to be bigger in the US afterall.

kennysideshow.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by One Moment

There never was a Flight 11, 77, 93, or 175; the government bribed (and/or threatened) the airlines to go along with their story.

reply to post by kiwasabi

 

That I can't fathom. I agree and believe all four flights were drones....oh YES I do, but to get a bunch of 'nobodies' to cover this up, seems difficult if not impossible to swallow (unless there was some heavy duty brain manipulation/hypnoses in place!)

Well your theory would require that the airlines would have to be bribed and/or threatened as well since they backed up the official story.

While I respect your opinion as to what happened. That ain't it!

I wouldn't be surprised if the US govt had Bin Laden in some form of "witness protection". That's why the troops sent on the manhunt couldn't find him... Maybe he wasn't even on that continent...

reply to post by kiwasabi


Your pharmacy called, wanting to know when you are going to pick up your Lithium prescription?

I disagree only b/c there isn't any proof to back that up. Is it possible? After reading the declassified Operation Northwoods, I figured that ANYTHING is possible..

BUT....

I only have one example to compare with 9/11, and why I feel what happened on that day. The Mumbai terror attack.
The Mumbai Terror Attack that happened on Nov 27th, 2008. A CIA agent was with the terrorists, and allowed them to carry out the attack. India's Intelligence found out about that CIA Agent and exposed the CIA to the world. That CIA Agent, David Headley, was later accused to be a "rogue agent", and pled GUILTY to the involvement. Ofcoarse, that news coverage was quickly forgotten, and never brought up again.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

It is MY OPINION that the CIA/NSA was well aware of the planned attack, sat back, and let it happen.... I feel the fact that the 9/11 Commission completely ignored WTC 7, is something that needs to be addressed. I also feel that the FBI is refusing to release the 3/4 "recording devices" in the planes, is something that needs to be addressed. The fact that the Pentagon has REFUSED to release ANY footage of the plane flying into their building, needs to be addressed.
Alot of corps made alot of money with this war.. Money speaks volumes
Planes DID fly into WTC-1 and WTC-2... Those are the ONLY confirmed facts that happened on that day.

Originally posted by SerialLurker
I wouldn't be surprised if the US govt had Bin Laden in some form of "witness protection". That's why the troops sent on the manhunt couldn't find him... Maybe he wasn't even on that continent...

Well they did fly all of Bin Laden's family out of the country on 9/11. I'm sure some sort of agreement was worked out. He has been their scapegoat for quite a long time. He was the first person they blamed for the Oklahoma City bombings.

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


But what about the Pentagon and Shanksville "crashes"? There wasn't any evidence of plane crashes. For reference, this is what a real crash site looks like:
news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by kiwasabi


Like I said, the ONLY confirmed action that took place on that day was the 2 planes hitting the Twin Towers. Everything else the government said happened is in question.

I actually have a friend who's relative was working in the FBI when 9/11 happened, and he said that the Shanksville plane was shot down. Even that doesn't make sense b/c of the ground damage, and the fact that no passenger was ever found. Then you have to ask yourself why the FBI isn't releasing the 'black box' recording from that plane? What are they hiding?

I understand why you assume that planes were never flown, but when you say the government bribed/threatened airliners, then it opens you up for alot of questioning

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


The government created a false dichotomy with Flight 93; did it get shot down, or did it crash? Notice how both of these options imply that THERE WAS A PLANE TO BEGIN WITH. As always, the government would much rather you assume that they were incompetent rather than complicit.

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
I understand why you assume that planes were never flown, but when you say the government bribed/threatened airliners, then it opens you up for alot of questioning

This is a fair concern. But I think a lot of people were bribed/threatened that day.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by kiwasabi]

reply to post by kiwasabi


"Here's what I think happened on 9/11"

You fall foul of all the problems that beset other 99% of all "truthers"

Firstly, you come up with a theory and then try to fit facts around it. In actual fact, ALLL crimes can be figured out in the same way - you need to establush who had MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY. As Sherlock Holmes was once written to have said that if one removes all that is not possible, then, what ever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.

Likewise, it is fundamental that if you are trying to solve a crime and just can solve it then you should reconsider each of you basic assumptions as one or more of them must be wrong, even though they seem obvious.

Where stealth and possible false flags are concerned, one should be extremely careful in one's consideration of making assumptions, yet with gleeful and free abandon, you accept a whole bunch of assumptions that 99% of all "truthers" make that actually have no basis whatsoever.

Central foolish assumptions that you make include these:-

1. That only one crime was committed, event though there was clearly more than one crime, in essence, two types of crime committed. A/ Crimes associated with mass murder b/ Crimes associated with the coverup. As many were in such shock and many foolishly act out of a sense of patriotism, it is quite possible that many committing the second set of crimes were not assoicated with the first set.
2. That if Bin Laden did not do this mass murder, then only the US Governement could have done it,. This is howlingly stupid and has not a shred of evidence to support this blind exclusion of all other possible suspects.
3. You make no real consideration of the MOTIVES.
4. You make the crass assumption that those who did this were traitors to the US and yet were patriotic enough to only "buy AMerican" and olnly use AMerican kit. THis is outrageously stupid. If people are going to consider mass murder and want to avoid going to the electric chiar, they would never even remotely consider which country's equipment they would use.
5. You work on the basis that "everyone's in it" when the basic workings of a conspiracy mean that the memebers will always try to keep their numbers low to avoid accidental leaks and people coming forward due to conscience and admitting to have done it.

A central proble for your thougths which leaves you open to criticism is the basic problem that the "truthers' have persistently faced, that, if it was the Government, why hasn't anyone broken ranks and come forward? I believe that there is an answer to this,b tu you are missing it.

Working on MEANS MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY actually eliminates so many that it quickly shows who did it.

Actually it is not that many people resisting at leas not at first. There are a few disinfo agents here trying to guide people into not believing the hard evidence. If you are familiar with the diamond formation for guiding larger groups of people in open physical forums into certain directions you get an idea what I mean.

Here's how it works. You get at least 4 folks and they position themselves in a diamond formation one at the front and back and one on each side as close to the middle as possible to form the diamond. And when one of them brings up the direction they want the agenda to go the the others across the room says yeah I agree, or hear hear, etc. and it gives the impression that is the majority opinion in the room even though it is just a few people, but people tending to have a herd mentality will join in with them cause they feel safer following the crowd. People don't like conflict and will go along to avoid conflict. I first learned of this when I got involved in politics years ago. It works surprisingly well for good or bad. When we realized what was going on we turned the tables on them a few times using the technique.

That's kind of like what's going on here. Like the thread on suddenly changing his mind on 9/11 and a few others. Some of these folks on these threads will be long time posters etc. trying to build thier credibility to steer others and when one speaks up the others jump in to support and star them etc. they also use circular reasoning or if that is not working they will just derail the thread by devolving it into personal attacks veiled or otherwise just repeating the same non-sense over and over.