Was the government a co-conspirator?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
OP, lets work with what you have said for now.



15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, they obtained their Visas from Saudi Arabia


First off all as Saudi citizens where else do you expect them to get visa’s form. Secondly surly if it was the case that Saudi Arabia were involved in this it would have made much more sense America to have invaded and occupied Saudi-Arabia (fully). I mean if you really think about it logically based on your argument it would make much more sense for America to have gone after Saudi-Arabia, just think of all that oil they could have stole.



Saudi royal family were funding the hijackers


Now we do know that some elements of the Saudi royal family helped Bin Laden escape to Sudan but do you have any evidence that theyThat they did, although it’s a very complex saga that led to that intelligence blunder. I could explain it all but then I get flamed by truthers. bank rolled the Hamburg Cell.



Do you still think 19 Arabs with nothing but box cutters managed to bypass the world's greatest defense?


Yes and why, because prior to 9/11 airport security was nothing like it is today. If you read the 9/11 commission they make this very clear.



The government told us al-qaeda and Iraq


That they did, although it’s a very complex saga that led to that intelligence blunder. I could explain it all but then I get flamed by truthers.


Why don’t you stop referring to the 9/11 Commission as a credible source, and instead show us some proof that the Commission was actually investigating 9/11, and taken seriously by the Bush administration..

The purpose of the 9/11 commission was to blame anybody but the Bush White House, they blamed Clinton, they blamed the CIA, the FBI etc. but at the end of their “investigation” the concluded that 9/11 was a result of a “failure of imagination”. And NOBODY got in any trouble.

I point to the report and ask how come nobody got fired ? Can you explain that to me please?

Bush didn’t even make the changes that the Commission recommended.




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The fact is, there's a lot of things going on in the world that have been goign on for years. That doesn't necessarily justify it, but it does explain why it's happening. All these people who really have no inkling of what's going on are seeing all this for the first time and they yell SECRET PLOT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, and I find this to be every bit the disinformation they say the gov't is pushing, because it encourages people to bark up a thousand wrong trees.

The fact that there are all these fear mongors like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery doesn't exactly help anyone get to the bottom of this, either.


You're definitely right. There are people who come into the 9/11 debate and are exposed to the no-planes theory, weather control, lasers from space and automatically are strayed from finding the real truth, the most logical truth.
I remember reading "FBI confiscated 85 tapes from the Pentagon crash" and I believed it without even checking out the source from where it came from. ::face palm:: If we're ever going to get close to the truth then all we can use is logic because honestly, that's the only way you're going to get someone else to open their eyes and start questioning it themselves. If you start off with "a laser was shot from space and brought down the WTC" then people are going to consider you an absolute loony lol and yeah lasers from space is some serious George Lucas $hit but people look at the "lasers from space" theory in the same way as someone saying "9/11 was an inside job done by all agencies of the government". The only way we can get closer to the truth is by connecting all of what's left of 9/11 (news articles, testimony, videos, etc) in a logical/non-contradictory way.
edit on 10-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Even if I take out the 9/11 commission everybody knows that before 9/11 airline security was lesser than it is today, that was the only reference I used form the report so your point does not really matter.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Yeah, the Federal Deficit is so high because the government bribed the Laws of Physics on 9/11.

It is called sarcasm in case anyone did not get it.

psik



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Well if that was your initial point do you not concede that it may cast doubt over this idea that Saudi Arabia were behind the attack. Surly if the Saudi’s were behind the 9/11 attacks the American s would have loved to have launched a full scale invasion and stole all their oil. When it comes to your quote, I find it difficult to find any proof in that that the Saudi’s were funding the Hamburg Cell

Also if you are wondering how they slipped through the FAA and NORAD the answer lies in history. Remember that before 9/11 there hadn’t been a terrorist hijacking of a commercial American aircraft in 30 years or so , yet alone multiple hijackings with planes being used as missiles with in a hour of them being hijacked. NORAD were notified by the FAA but they (NORAD) only had knew of one hijacking in advance and even at that only had 9 minutes to scramble jets.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1
 


Even if I take out the 9/11 commission everybody knows that before 9/11 airline security was lesser than it is today, that was the only reference I used form the report so your point does not really matter.


So airport security was the problem, not the CIA or the FBI, or Condoleezza Rice and Bush ignoring the warnings? If only we had the TSA on 9/11/01 this section on ATS would not exist.

Lol



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Of course that also factored into the attacks, but fundamentally if airport security was what it is now it is probable that the attacks would not have been successful. Yes there were massive intelligence blunders in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks information was not sheared between agencies and there was no clear counterterrorism direction in America that put a stop to a number of attempts to capture or kill Bin Laden before 9/11. The Clinton administration was particularly poor when it came to combating terrorism however this was not entirely the presidents fault, circumstances and other priorities during the 1990’s distracted form terrorism.

That said however if airport security had toughly checked those 19 terrorists before they got on those planes then they could have stopped the attacks.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by homervb
 


Well if that was your initial point do you not concede that it may cast doubt over this idea that Saudi Arabia were behind the attack. Surly if the Saudi’s were behind the 9/11 attacks the American s would have loved to have launched a full scale invasion and stole all their oil. When it comes to your quote, I find it difficult to find any proof in that that the Saudi’s were funding the Hamburg Cell

Also if you are wondering how they slipped through the FAA and NORAD the answer lies in history. Remember that before 9/11 there hadn’t been a terrorist hijacking of a commercial American aircraft in 30 years or so , yet alone multiple hijackings with planes being used as missiles with in a hour of them being hijacked. NORAD were notified by the FAA but they (NORAD) only had knew of one hijacking in advance and even at that only had 9 minutes to scramble jets.



9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

I think you should go debunk Bigfoot, and let the grownups discuss this issue.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1
 


Of course that also factored into the attacks, but fundamentally if airport security was what it is now it is probable that the attacks would not have been successful. Yes there were massive intelligence blunders in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks information was not sheared between agencies and there was no clear counterterrorism direction in America that put a stop to a number of attempts to capture or kill Bin Laden before 9/11. The Clinton administration was particularly poor when it came to combating terrorism however this was not entirely the presidents fault, circumstances and other priorities during the 1990’s distracted form terrorism.

That said however if airport security had toughly checked those 19 terrorists before they got on those planes then they could have stopped the attacks.


You know what else could of stopped the attacks.. bad weather, I mean if the planes couldn’t fly they wouldn’t be able to do it, right?

You make no sense, the hijackers were known to the CIA and the FBI. They had more than enough information to stop the terrorists before they even got close to the airports.
edit on 10-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




Well if that was your initial point do you not concede that it may cast doubt over this idea that Saudi Arabia were behind the attack. Surly if the Saudi’s were behind the 9/11 attacks the American s would have loved to have launched a full scale invasion and stole all their oil.


What makes you think Americans love invading nations?
If by Americans you mean Bush, then the answer is.... Why would Bush attack his business partners and best friends?


Americans were attacked and lied to about who attacked them. If Bush would say that the Mongols were responsible for 9/11 the people would support invading Mongolia in revenge.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 




I think you should go debunk Bigfoot, and let the grownups discuss this issue.


I think you should perhaps watch you tone, I like to remain civil, if you are going to insist on using phrases like “let the gown up’s this” then I will simply leave.

You are suffering from what quiet allot of people who follow conspiracies appear to suffer from, ignorance. I do not intend to be insulting by saying that rather it is an observation I have made in my time hear on ATS that members on the whole know little or nothing about terrorism. This is largely due to the majority of sources of terrorism coming from the alternative media or form 9/11 conspiracies. This in addition with misreporting by the mainstream media and the potent mix of politics and terrorism leads many to have a distorted view of terrorism that is a rife breading ground for outlandish conspiracy theories

For me I find it highly frustrating, I find that in almost every post I read about terrorism I can find some kind of factual inaccuracy and it is impossible to correct them all. Then I find when I do correct them I get some random website a source to this false information which usually has a conspiracy agenda on not in context of the winder picture so what is the point in me correcting other members ignorance. Many on ATS need to believe in conspiracies around terrorism because they need to believe in “Al-CIAdu” to believe in the grand conspiracy of 9/11 which is the foundation for much of their world view. Neither I nor can anyone else really ever convince a truther that the OS is the most accurate account of what happened on that day.

You may then rightly ask why I bother posting on this site, well the truth is that every now and then I can discuss terrorism without this conspiracy agenda, every now and then there is indeed a conspiracy related to terrorism and I do enjoy debating with the truthers. But only when they can respect that I have a different opinion than them when it comes to 9/11 and not resort to the petty insults you appear to have targeted me with. I find it just as frustrating as you do, if not more so at times, yet I do not presume to insult you or your intelligence so don’t insult mine. I have studied terrorism extensively level I know what I am talking about so please show me the same respect that I show you when responding to my posts.

If you want me to elaborate on anything please ask and if I can I will answer you or if you want me to pass comment on anything in relation to this thread again please ask. But don’t start insulting me when you don’t like the answer.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


To the Israeli's all paths are destined by religious nuttery,, and even more than the Arabs you constantly go on about...

I think it is more in the other direction, EVERYONE elses agents are now observing Israel's movements...and finally have begun limiting them.

In the minds of muslims, and Jews, nothing matters but religious garbage,,,for they serve some rather bizarre Rulers.

Stop defending the Israeli's...you may be able to see what they have done...and it is certainly is not to help anyone but there GOD.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1
 




I think you should go debunk Bigfoot, and let the grownups discuss this issue.


I think you should perhaps watch you tone, I like to remain civil, if you are going to insist on using phrases like “let the gown up’s this” then I will simply leave.

You are suffering from what quiet allot of people who follow conspiracies appear to suffer from, ignorance. I do not intend to be insulting by saying that rather it is an observation I have made in my time hear on ATS that members on the whole know little or nothing about terrorism. This is largely due to the majority of sources of terrorism coming from the alternative media or form 9/11 conspiracies. This in addition with misreporting by the mainstream media and the potent mix of politics and terrorism leads many to have a distorted view of terrorism that is a rife breading ground for outlandish conspiracy theories

For me I find it highly frustrating, I find that in almost every post I read about terrorism I can find some kind of factual inaccuracy and it is impossible to correct them all. Then I find when I do correct them I get some random website a source to this false information which usually has a conspiracy agenda on not in context of the winder picture so what is the point in me correcting other members ignorance. Many on ATS need to believe in conspiracies around terrorism because they need to believe in “Al-CIAdu” to believe in the grand conspiracy of 9/11 which is the foundation for much of their world view. Neither I nor can anyone else really ever convince a truther that the OS is the most accurate account of what happened on that day.

You may then rightly ask why I bother posting on this site, well the truth is that every now and then I can discuss terrorism without this conspiracy agenda, every now and then there is indeed a conspiracy related to terrorism and I do enjoy debating with the truthers. But only when they can respect that I have a different opinion than them when it comes to 9/11 and not resort to the petty insults you appear to have targeted me with. I find it just as frustrating as you do, if not more so at times, yet I do not presume to insult you or your intelligence so don’t insult mine. I have studied terrorism extensively level I know what I am talking about so please show me the same respect that I show you when responding to my posts.

If you want me to elaborate on anything please ask and if I can I will answer you or if you want me to pass comment on anything in relation to this thread again please ask. But don’t start insulting me when you don’t like the answer.


Did not mean to hurt your feelings.

Your posts led me to believe that you have nothing useful to contribute to the topic we are discussing.
Please prove me wrong by explaining why you feel that the OS is the most accurate account of what happened on that day.
If you will be referring to any sources that back up your statements and it happens to be the 9/11 Commission Report, please provide reasons why we should take it seriously.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1
 


Of course that also factored into the attacks, but fundamentally if airport security was what it is now it is probable that the attacks would not have been successful. Yes there were massive intelligence blunders in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks information was not sheared between agencies and there was no clear counterterrorism direction in America that put a stop to a number of attempts to capture or kill Bin Laden before 9/11. The Clinton administration was particularly poor when it came to combating terrorism however this was not entirely the presidents fault, circumstances and other priorities during the 1990’s distracted form terrorism.

That said however if airport security had toughly checked those 19 terrorists before they got on those planes then they could have stopped the attacks.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 




I remember reading "FBI confiscated 85 tapes from the Pentagon crash" and I believed it without even checking


Yes a lot of the stuff on these websites are false. But the strangest thing to me about the pentagon is the Lloyd England story.



I just don't understand how it is possible for two guys to remove the light pole out of the windshield without damaging the hood of his taxi. I'm not saying he was complicit or anything like that, just that it sounds pretty impossible. What do you think?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 

It is not a matter of “hurting my feelings” it’s a matter of respect for your fellow members and to say
I have not contributed to this thread is also disrespectful, makes me think you haven’t bothered to read my posts.

If you are asking me why I believe the official story then it is perhaps better that I first tell you this was not always the case. Shortly after 9/11 I started to believe that 9/11 part of some kind of conspiracy so I started reading around 9/11 truth, I read the books and watch the documentaries for about 6 months or so. As I had always had an interest in Irish terrorism I one day decided to start studying Islamic terrorism. That was probably 4 or 5 years ago now I have since read widely on the subject and undertook modules on terrorism studies at university level and came to the conclusion that when put into the correct historical context an event like 9/11 was inevitable. I started to understand that with the massive historical backdrop to 9/11 it would have been impossible for “Al-CIAdu” to have existed but inevitable that “Al-Qa’ida” exists as the official story depicts. This then cast massive doubt of most if not all 9/11 conspiracies and as such I now believe that the official story of 9/11 is the most accurate account we have of what really happened that day.

That is why I believe the official story is the most accurate account of what happened that day, because I believe that Al-Qa’ida was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 independent of any government agency.
edit on 11-5-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   


What do we think of Sibel Edmonds? She's been tagged as the "Most Gagged Person in US History" being forced to keep her mouth shut because of threats to national security.
edit on 11-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Well if that was your initial point do you not concede that it may cast doubt over this idea that Saudi Arabia were behind the attack. Surly if the Saudi’s were behind the 9/11 attacks the American s would have loved to have launched a full scale invasion and stole all their oil. When it comes to your quote, I find it difficult to find any proof in that that the Saudi’s were funding the Hamburg Cell


They would have loved it if they weren't allies and had strong ties to each other. These senators have looked at the classified information, signed sworn affidavits, and went public with the info.


Also if you are wondering how they slipped through the FAA and NORAD the answer lies in history. Remember that before 9/11 there hadn’t been a terrorist hijacking of a commercial American aircraft in 30 years or so , yet alone multiple hijackings with planes being used as missiles with in a hour of them being hijacked. NORAD were notified by the FAA but they (NORAD) only had knew of one hijacking in advance and even at that only had 9 minutes to scramble jets.


That is your opinion. My personal opinion is that these 9/11 military/FAA/NORAD drills confused them to the point where any action they took still wouldn't have been enough to do anything. All the protocols for taking action against hijacked aircrafts was very complex, the most I'd say they'd be able to do is shadow the planes, if not all then maybe 1 or 2. I'm not saying my opinion is fact, but to me it would make sense for the 9/11 plot to occur in a time where America's aviation agencies as well as the military were distracted with other drills.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


No it’s not my opinion its fact, it is what happened. There hadn’t been a hijacking of a commercial airline in 30 years, the planes were used as missiles and NORAD only knew of one hick jacking prior to it crashing and at that only 9 minutes.

Also the drills did not confuse them, at NEADs they asked the FAA when the FAA first reported the hijacking “Is this real world or exercise” FAA responded by telling them it was real, so no confusion there. It is true on 9/11 there was mass confusion but that had nothing to do with any drills, it was because the system was not prepared to deal with this type of attack as it was unprecedented.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by homervb
 


No it’s not my opinion its fact, it is what happened. There hadn’t been a hijacking of a commercial airline in 30 years, the planes were used as missiles and NORAD only knew of one hick jacking prior to it crashing and at that only 9 minutes.

Also the drills did not confuse them, at NEADs they asked the FAA when the FAA first reported the hijacking “Is this real world or exercise” FAA responded by telling them it was real, so no confusion there. It is true on 9/11 there was mass confusion but that had nothing to do with any drills, it was because the system was not prepared to deal with this type of attack as it was unprecedented.







"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration


In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.



^--You want to go by the Commission Report then fine. But if everything was all good with these agencies then why couldn't the commission make sense of what they were saying? Chasing a phantom aircraft? Obvious, to me at least, there was confusion if a fighter jet is chasing a phantom aircraft. Are you taking my point as "oh NORAD, the FAA, and the military had a stand down order"?





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join