Hijackers - Proof that 9/11 wasn't a false flag to start Iraq war?

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You're welcome to your opinions, but they're paper thin. The treasury stuff's been done to death. You can't substantiate any of the sci-fi drone/remote contentions. And heroin suddenly on every corner? It's been there since the late 70s, since before crack. And it's production has fallen, not risen, in the last year.

Boy, you just seem to know everything about everything when it comes to what our government is or isn't involved with. You run the gamete from piloting a Boeing to how much drugs are on this streets from one decade to the next. It's quite amazing, really. In fact, it's downright overkill and all your persistence in trying to debunk anything relating to 9/11 has become downright annoying. Give it up.

Do you do this just for attention or are you getting paid? If it's the latter, I wish your boss would send you on vacation already. I can't stand the thought of my tax dollars funding your nonsense.

Ah, the old "you must work for the government" number.

I take it you don't have a proper response then? Or a genuine argument against anything I wrote.

I've never hidden the fact that I am a paid government agent. We have a building in Cincinnati, use of a gym, three weeks paid holiday. If I can annoy one more Truther by Friday evening I get employee of the month and a 50 dollar voucher for Pizza Express.

I get that “you must be a government agent” number quite allot. To tell the truth i rather enjoy it. Notice how my points have been ignored.

Originally posted by passingthought

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
Sorry but I was under the impression you had proof that 9/11 was not a false flag.You show no proof,but ask a question.Very misleading.

Here's a question though.Why did they invade Afghanistan when most of the hijackers were from Saudis Arabia?And why did they invade Afghanistan and say it was to get Osama but had no evidence to prove Osama was even involved in 9/11?..even plastering his face all over the news like he did it.It's been 9 years and there is STILL no proof Osama was even involved.

If you have proof that it wasn't a false flag I would be interested in seeing it...peace.

Althought it's second-hand information, the gov't has stated that Al Qaeda claimed the attacks in NYC. They have certainly done so on Al Jazeera, although it's heavily filtered for broadcast here in the US.

From the available sources, though, they take credit for it. Many Saudis concur with them also, because of the US stronghold that was set up there during Operation Desert Storm, where many said the Americans defiled their Holy Land. Remember, to the Arabs, the Americans are Infidels, and aren't really are allies. They do like our money for oil, however.

reply to post by passingthought


Forgive my inexperienced post.I tried quoting but messed up..I'm new here.

Do you know when Al Qaeda claimed responsibility?Because it was only a day later when they plastered Osama's face all over the news.Now why would they do that when there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in 9/11?

Don't you think invading a country with no evidence is wrong?

And if the Muslims are such a threat then why does America let them in?They would be able to destroy America from the inside.

I've never seen a suicide bomber in America except on the news.You would think there would be lots considering all those supposed terrorists cells out there.There was the underwear bomber,which failed.How could Al Qaeda go from 9/11 to an underwear bomb...and screw it up?

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
reply to post by passingthought

 

Forgive my inexperienced post.I tried quoting but messed up..I'm new here.

Do you know when Al Qaeda claimed responsibility?Because it was only a day later when they plastered Osama's face all over the news.Now why would they do that when there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in 9/11?

Don't you think invading a country with no evidence is wrong?

And if the Muslims are such a threat then why does America let them in?They would be able to destroy America from the inside.

I've never seen a suicide bomber in America except on the news.You would think there would be lots considering all those supposed terrorists cells out there.There was the underwear bomber,which failed.How could Al Qaeda go from 9/11 to an underwear bomb...and screw it up?

As I stated, it is second-hand information. The Gov't is well known for saying what it wants to, to back up it's actions.

Whether or not it was as portrayed on the news, I'm not really sure.

Propagandists have been incremental in wars within the American infrastructure since mass media became widely dispersable. So, it stands to reason you see what you're supposed to.

As far as the suicide bomber, it's a philosophy that distinguishes the defined enemy combatants from the Am. GI hero/heroine thing, making them unrespectable and sub-human. This is just what the networks trickle down on the audience.

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX


Forgive my inexperienced post.I tried quoting but messed up..I'm new here.

Do you know when Al Qaeda claimed responsibility?Because it was only a day later when they plastered Osama's face all over the news.Now why would they do that when there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in 9/11?

Except he'd tried to blow the WTC up before.

And if the Muslims are such a threat then why does America let them in?They would be able to destroy America from the inside.

You do understand that it's a tiny minority of muslims? There are plenty of Christian nutjobs as well, but you don't see America chucking them out.

I've never seen a suicide bomber in America except on the news.

Where do you expect to see them? There aren't that many people willing to blow themselves up, so you're not likely to bump into them at the newsagent.

You would think there would be lots considering all those supposed terrorists cells out there.There was the underwear bomber,which failed.How could Al Qaeda go from 9/11 to an underwear bomb...and screw it up?

Madrid, Yemen, London, Glasgow, Egypt, just off the top of my head.

But Al Qaeda isn't a big top-down organisation - it's a loose affiliation.

You're right though. After 9/11 it was always going to be tough for Al Q. Difficult second album syndrome.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade



What I'm wondering is why, if 9/11 was a "false flag" designed to provide an excuse for the Iraq invasion, why none of the fake hijackers was given an Iraqi identity?

Anyone?

1. They're nothing but a bunch of blundering crooks or they wouldn't be trillions in debt to begin with. With the all the staggering illegal taxes they collect they should easily be able to balance a budget.

2. Saddam may or may not have directly had something to do with the 911 attacks but he no doubt sponsored terrorism. Plus he attempted to assassinate senior Bush.

www.husseinandterror.com...

3. Many of the hijacker terrorists are claimed to be alive and well. Also they came up with all the identities of the hijackers way to quickly. Very suspicious.

Basically, to answer the OP question, you need to know what their REAL agenda is.

They want to dominate the world, they want to create a communist style dictatorship of the 'sheeple' of the whole planet.

Iraq was stretigically another cog in the wheel that they needed, and it has oil, and war makes them money as an added extra.

They had been wanting to invade Iraq for a long time. They also want to invade Iran - also in the quest for world domination and subjugation.

Strategically, Afghanistan and Iraq are important to control before any invasion of Iran takes place.

By, creating the genocidal attack, placing the blame on Al-Qaeda, then blalming the Taliban for protecting Al-Qaeda, that gave them an excuse they could get the public to swallow, and they invaded Afghanistan.

They still had the tricky issue of finding an excuse to invade Iraq. But they realy played the terrorist card for every ounce they could get out of it. People had swallowed it with regard to Afghanistan, so by keeping the fear of fake 'terrorists' alive in US and UK, they only needed to be able to link that fear with Saddam in order, they believed, to get the people to swallow a need to also invade attack to 'stamp out terrorism'.

With the increasing cries for an investigation about 9/11, and the need to act while they could still keep fuelling a fear of imminent terrorist attack in US and UK, they had to act quickly. Hence the rush to push this forward and over-ride the reports from the UN weapons inspectors, and all legal and UN restraints

As we know, they came unstuck on that one, and people wised up - but sadly, only after the fact. And hundreds and thousands more innocent people were muredered in their pursuit of power and greed.

The US government didn’t use 911 as a pretext for invading Iraq.

The pretext used was Saddam’s alleged possession of WMD, which has nothing to do with 911.

I hope that clears up why the alleged 911 hijackers were not given Iraqi identities.

The question that comes to my mind is:

If most of the hijackers were Saudis; and the organizer, according to the government conspiracy theory, was also a Saudi, then why were US military reprisals directed at Afghanistan rather than Saudi Arabia?

reply to post by wcitizen


Which doesn't really refute my point. Which is that if an evil faction inside the US government had been deigning the 911 attacks in order to provide an excuse to attack Iraq, they could easily have made one of the hijackers Iraqi.

The excuse above - which implies that the hijackers were invented, but given the wrong nationality because the inventors of the plot were stupid - is a real stretch.

reply to post by aethron


Again, this implies that the people responsible for invading Iraq and Afghanistan were not involved in the plot.

I'm not suggesting that they didn't squeeze the last drop of propaganda advantage from the attacks in a venal and selfish manner. But it does seem likely that if their grand plan involved Iraq and Afghanistan, and they were inventing the hijackers, they could easily have created a few Iraqi and Afghan fake identities.

Pretty well known now that they were talking about Iraq well before 911. Who is to say they didn't also discuss invading it as well?

reply to post by mikelee


Exactly. They obviously were itching to invade Iraq. Which just makes it seem strange that they didn't invent an Iraqi hijacker, especially given their later efforts to link Saddam to 9/11 in the public consciousness.

One is left to conclude that they didn't invent the hijackers.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I thought I'd write the title to this thread in the now fashionable style.

What I'm wondering is why, if 9/11 was a "false flag" designed to provide an excuse for the Iraq invasion, why none of the fake hijackers was given an Iraqi identity?

Anyone?

Mod Edit: Changed to title to be less misleading.

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Gemwolf]

The primary reason is to create war. War is a racket. So far 3 trillion dollars has been forked over by the US taxpayer and been absorbed by the military industrial complex through the two wars - not bad money.

Secondly Afghanistan was the primary route from the massive Turkmenistan oil fields where UNOCAL wanted to build a natural gas pipe line through Afghansitan into Pakistan and India - HUGE markets.

This was pushed by Robin Raphel - who was assistant secretary of state to Clinton - she was Known as "Lady Taliban" as she didn't care who was in charge - so long as they got the pipe line.

She has been re-appointed by Obama to Pakistan - understandably amonst intense consternation.

Here are some links:
www.nowpublic.com...

rupeenews.com...

How long the gov has known about the vast mineral wealth of Afghanistan is also very much up for debate.

Finally the terrorists were Saudi - not Afghani. This is important. The Saudis have been the number one sponsor of global terror for a long time - primarily through the schools which promote Wahabism - an extremely violent and regressive form of Islam.

The terrorists were brought into the US by the CIA - once there the CIA was powerless to investigate them as it is beyond their remit. The FBI had no clue.

The primary reason for instigating 911 was to create a new enemy. International Relations theory positions America as being defined by its enemy - since the collapse of the cold war there has been no enemy to fight - hence - America was UNDEFINED.

Terrorists, and Islam, became the new RED enemy.

Finally Afghanistan is the most geographically important country in the world.

Hope this helps somewhat.

reply to post by Aristophrenia


Thanks for an interesting post. I agree with some of it - although I don't go for the pipeline stuff. And I see no evidence that the CIA were complicit in the terrorists' actions or bringing them to the US.

The rest of your observations look to me like more evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job designed to produce wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't doubt that Afghanistan is strategically important, but why then were there no Afghan hijackers? And why no Iraqis? It seems fanciful to suggest that an organisation bent on the kind of world domination alluded to in this thread, and with the resources to mount such a sophisticated false flag, would get the fake IDs wrong.

I know Iraq has now left the CT agenda somewhat. But if one forms opinions based on this kind of hindsight, by looking at what is currently important and saying, "well, that must have been their intention," then one risks the charge of opportunism. And perhaps of being the kind of person who psychologically requires a narrative to explain everything.

The nationalities of the hijackers are only important at a sort of boneheaded level.

At it's knuckle dragging, drooling lowest, the American electorate would be unable to destinguish between middle eastern nationalities anyway. Everyone would be considered ragheads. And those are the folks that the Bush administration were attempting to reach.

The beauty of Al Quaeda as a tool of the NWO is that they are an international entity that can be linked to any area in the world and then used to justify military action in those places.

So individual nationalities of terrorists are irrelevant. The US has never sold military action based on nationality (in the context of the "war on terror"), it has always been on the basis of groups like Al Quaeda who are international in scope.

The fact that most of the hijackers/dupes on 9/11 were apparently Saudi has to do more with the circumstances of the creation of Al Quaeda by the CIA. When they created it they were able to recruit many members in Saudi Arabia who would be accepted in the Afghan milieu as allies of the Taliban against the Soviets.

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber was born in the UK. That doesn't mean that the US is going to launch an attack on the UK.

The nationalities of the hijackers played no role in the strategic planning of 9/11 except to the extent that they were from the middle east. If they had all been from Michigan that might have been a PR problem in terms of selling middle eastern invasions, I grant you.

When the government wants to invade Michigan, I am sure that suitable Michigan members of Al Quaeda will spring into action and supply a pretext.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


Well, I guess that means you think the hijackers were real. As do I.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
Because it wasn't about going into iraq.It was about going into afghanistan. And well guess what.... it worked, and osama bin laden was the scapegoat. Iraq came after, when they decided to take the war on terror and use it to their advantage to rule the world and take away our freedoms one at a time.

Amen. Notice how they directly claimed many times the poppy fields were generating money for terrorists? Then we went in there and the poppy production never stopped.

Drugs are one of the best control devices available next to religion.

And if we were still in Iraq and out of Afghanistan then it would all have been about Iraq. Some people obviously find it comforting to retrofit their theory to whatever's happening now.

Jprophet, you post implies that the US controls Afghanistan, and the poppy production. Neither is true. And if the US could find a way out of the unholy mess they've got themselves into, they would.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Aristophrenia

 

Thanks for an interesting post. I agree with some of it - although I don't go for the pipeline stuff. And I see no evidence that the CIA were complicit in the terrorists' actions or bringing them to the US.

The rest of your observations look to me like more evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job designed to produce wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't doubt that Afghanistan is strategically important, but why then were there no Afghan hijackers? And why no Iraqis? It seems fanciful to suggest that an organisation bent on the kind of world domination alluded to in this thread, and with the resources to mount such a sophisticated false flag, would get the fake IDs wrong.

I know Iraq has now left the CT agenda somewhat. But if one forms opinions based on this kind of hindsight, by looking at what is currently important and saying, "well, that must have been their intention," then one risks the charge of opportunism. And perhaps of being the kind of person who psychologically requires a narrative to explain everything.

Not sure what you mean by the "don't go for the pipeline stuff" - its not made up, its an absolute fact. If you want further proof of this the American bases in Afghanistan are in fact all aligned to the pipe line route. Secondly the administrations - specifically Robin - stated that this was the purpose unequivocally - its not something you can "go with" or not - its a fact.

Secondly the CIA were absolutely involved - the station chief in Saudi Arabia who admitted the terrorists - and many, many more - resigned in protest over the CIA operation and publicly disclosed the process - covered in the main stream media thoroughly. Again - this is not something which is either agreeable or not - its a fact. Simply put you can have your own opinion - but not your own facts. Those are facts.

Here is some background on the CIA pushing terrorists into the US -

www.historycommons.org...,_jedda,_saudi_arabia_office

There are some fantastic PBS documentaries on the process of law and jurisdiction which prevented FBI officials from acting on the terrorists once inside the US - despite the full knowledge of both the CIA and FBI of their activities.

The fact that the CIA brought these men into the country, knew who they were and were aware of their activities and provided training and finance to them - is all that is needed to know that the US was complicit in the 911 attacks.

The idea of bombs in the buildings, no planes, missiles, everything else is utterly irrelevant in the face of that simple truth.

As to the rest of your response - i don't think you quite get what the war on terror and the 'Clash of Civilisations" is all about. Islam is a nation - not just a religion. The US need an enemy in order to define themselves and to instigate continuous ongoing war - as I have said - for profit. The members of the hijack team yes were Saudi, Egyptian and UAE - however more importantly they were Sunni and AlQaeda - al qaeda had its base and foundation in Afghanistan.