It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Or, perhaps those they paid to do it got a little zeealous and forgot to tell Dick what was going on. You hired 19 who???

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Aristophrenia

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.

Sorry, what I mean is that your contention that the goal is solely to secure a pipeline route is not one that I concur with.

But personally I would be surprised if energy security were not one of the goals of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Your mistake, as I see it, is to make the leap from this reality to complicity in 9/11.

And bringing it back to the point of the thread, if the goal in Afghanistan was simply to transfer Turkmenistan's natural gas, then one might assume that the aim was similar in Iraq. Which brings one back to the original question - if they were responsible for the attacks, why no Iraqi hijackers? It would have made things so much simpler for them, and would presumably have been easy, if the identities were fake.

If the identities were not fake, but the men were assets of some sort, then that opens up another whole argument entirely. But I still can't see why, if one was orchestrating the whole thing, one wouldn't have an Iraqi or two involved.

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 -,_jedda,_saudi_arabia_office

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by the "station chief" who admitted the terrorists. There's nothing in the material you cite about that.

I think you're seeing a pattern that you want to see.

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.

I'd like to see a source for this. Purely because your other stuff doesn't quite say what you claim for it.

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.

Once again, you've provided no evidence of this. The article you link to mentions Michael Springmann issuing visas in the late 80s to suspect people. It doesn't corroborate your fanciful notion that the CIA brought the 19 hijackers into the country.

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

If it is true.

Although I certainly share your feelings about the relevance of those ideas.

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.

Exactly. Which is why they went to war with Afghanistan.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Or, perhaps those they paid to do it got a little zeealous and forgot to tell Dick what was going on. You hired 19 who???

That is, I suppose, just about possible.

Although how one would go about hiring 19 suicide terrorists I don't know. Pay them?

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 04:10 AM
9-11 was not solely about oil, opium or war. Those are just perks for the people involved.

You are so overpowered by the intent of the deceivers that you're failing to see the slight of hand.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by JPhish

Or you're so keen to satisfy your impulses for Jungian closure that you're seeing a narrative where none exists.

Capitalism is going to keep trashing the world, I'm sure of that. Unfortunately I don't think it can be stopped by a few determined men breaking into a room and shooting half a dozen fat fat cats.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:54 PM
Here is a summary of the main points so far in this thread that directly pertain to the core issue of the OP’s question, which was

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?


xxshadowfaxx :
Because it wasn't about going into iraq.It was about going into afghanistan.

Because the Iraqi's had a government, a secret service etc.
Claiming they were Iraqi's, the Iraqi government would have piped up, denied it and proved it.

9/11 surely wasn't a false flag to start Iraq war. It was a false flag to start the war in Afghanistan which US (with UK) invaded in less than a month after 9/11.

alpha chino
The mind control is so effective people really can't remember why these wars started?

It seems pretty clear the OP thought that 9/11 was used as justification to invade Iraq.

I can see why my comment could be perceived that way, in that I am supporting his contention that Iraq was not the victim of a false flag operation on 9/11, because nobody seriously advocated that position.

It would be strange to say Iraq was the deliberate and specific victim of a false flag attack when nobody in government or the media even tried to pin the attacks on Iraq in a serious manner.

I didn't mean that it proved it's not a conspiracy. But it makes it likely it wasn't a false flag to attack Iraq.

Doctor Smith
They're nothing but a bunch of blundering crooks or they wouldn't be trillions in debt to begin with.

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

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.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:13 AM
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

That and the promise to take care of their familys for as long as they live. That carrys a lot of weight in that part of the world.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

That and the promise to take care of their familys for as long as they live. That carrys a lot of weight in that part of the world.

Despite the fact that they were mostly at university in Germany? I'm not sure that German-educated engineers have quite the need to sacrifice themselves to lift their families out of poverty as you might imagine.

Still, that's a side issue. It remains highly unlikely that the masterminds behind this plan simply forgot to create the right aliases.

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:23 PM
why didn't the government claim the hijackers were Iraqis...

simple. How many Iraqis are living in the US, versus how many Saudis? I just did the research. 90,000 Iraqis, 6.3 million Saudis. Essentially there are 70 Saudis to every Iraqi living inside the US.

The public sentiment to 9/11 of shock, disgust, anger and fear were enough for most citizens to give the intelligence and law enforcement communities a bit of a pass for letting 19 Saudis slip through the cracks. You start throwing around Iraqi nationals as culprits, and I don't think passes would fly with nearly as many citizens. Most US citizens know someone who is either from Saudi Arabia or whose family came here from Saudi Arabia. How many US citizens know someone from Iraq? They know Saudis as good people, contributing members of society and don't expect every Saudi to be investigated by the FBI. Now matter how we may try to spin it, people are discriminatory, based on what they know, what they see and hear and what they believe. Throw in even 1 Iraqi national to the list of conspirators (make no mistake, the official story is a conspiracy theory as well) and it becomes a massive failure of intelligence and law enforcement, one that would have to cost people their jobs. By using Saudis, not only were people not fired, they remained in their jobs and were promoted....which also explains the lack of whistleblowers.

Bush didn't need a pretext to specifically invade Iraq, that would have actually been counterproductive, as it only gives justification for 1 invasion, not multiple ones. Bush only needed a pretext to push through the Bush doctrine and the so-called war on terror. Once he got that, everything was fair game- Iraq, Iran, Yemen, North Korea et cetera. Wherever he chose to make his next preemptive strike, the 9/11 false flag and the resulting so-called war on terror gave him the power to call all the shots. Remember the "Axis of Evil"? That planted the "you better fear Iraq" seed in citizens minds, just 4 months after 9/11, while they were still showing color-coded "terror alerts" on all the news stations.

By naming the hijackers as Saudis who were training, operating and being harbored in Afghanistan (among other places, if you'll recall Iraq, Syria and North Korea were said to have state sponsored "terrorist training camps" as well), it effectively removed the chance of pigeon-holing any one nation or group of nations that would have barred the Bush/Cheney war machine from spouting 9/11 to generate public support for a strike on any nation they deemed fit of receiving one.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by FreeSafety]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in