Anyone else find it exceedingly strange how...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


You forgot about the anthrax... that Iraq and al Qaeda forces sent through USPS... after somehow smuggling it out of the U.S. military facilities where it originated...




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by PsychoReaper4
 


Perhaps they jumped to the most logical conclusion, given the evidence....



  1. 4 foreign nationals are in first class on each missing flight.
  2. Overwhelmingly, these foreign nationals are from Saudi Arabia.
  3. The attacks are obviously terrorism.
  4. Osama Bin Laden has declared war against the US for some time.
  5. Osama bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist Organization, Al Quaeda.
  6. Al Quaeda has attacked US targets abroad, and specialized in spectacular, media grabbing attacks.



What conclusion would you reach?


That Saudi Arabia did it. How about you? Sure makes sense to invade Iraq based on your evidence....logical result based on, wait, what? They were from Saudi Arabia? Hmmm. That doesn't make sense.

CJ


It only doesn't make sense if you think it was an "inside job" designed to provide an excuse to invade Iraq. Of course that does not work; but if you are not labouring under that delusion there is no problem.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


There is a problem ........... Al Qaeda ...... you know who owns them , funds them , gives them orders , so how would that not be a problem ?

Plus , Osama Bin Laden`s family have got close ties with the political elite , and what do you know , now he`s in the white house pretending he killed himself



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


? Were any of the hijackers from Iraq? Was Bin Laden in Iraq? One piece of evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with it? Never mind. You can't find one - -because even WE admitted there was none...after lying openly about the "secret meeting". How about this scenario:

15 men take over a bank and rob it. 12 of them are CRIPS. The police response is to attack and destroy the the Boy Scouts HQ. Makes about as much sense, yes?

CJ



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Alfie1
 


? Were any of the hijackers from Iraq? Was Bin Laden in Iraq? One piece of evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with it? Never mind. You can't find one - -because even WE admitted there was none...after lying openly about the "secret meeting". How about this scenario:

15 men take over a bank and rob it. 12 of them are CRIPS. The police response is to attack and destroy the the Boy Scouts HQ. Makes about as much sense, yes?

CJ


I thought that was what I was saying to you but I obviously didn't make myself clear. There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq which rather makes a nonsense of the common claim that it was a false flag operation to justify an invasion of Iraq.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
That is because many people have this strange misconception that the attacks of 9/11 where the first act of Al-Qa’ida’s war against America, in truth it had been going on though out the 1990’s. It really kicked off in 1996 when Bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan and issued the 1996 Fatwa followed by another in 1998. However even before this the Americans had been putting pressure on Sudan over Bin Laden, they initially saw him as a terrorist financer rather than a major player however that soon all changed.

If you look at terrorism in the 1990’s Al-Qa’ida’s hands are all over it with the 1998 embassy bombing and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole but also their involvement elsewhere and attempted attacks against American interests. If you read the 9/11 commission and Ghost Wars by Steve Coll they both give a very good account of this war throughout the 1990’s between American intelligence and Al-Qa’ida, Bin Laden himself had talked about publicly how something spectacular was on the way. The general view in the run up to the 9/11 attacks were that it was a case of when and not if Al-Qa’ida would strike at America.

I can’t really do this period in history any justice other than to inform you that it was largely due to this that suspicion first fell on Al-Qa’ida and therefore this was the focus of the investigation and as such they were able to say early on that it was most likely the work of Al-Qa’ida as they were able to connect the hijackers to Al-Qa’ida with relative ease once they had been identified.

I can understand why to some the perceived ease at which the government were able to associate blame to Al-Qa’ida to be somewhat suspicious however when you understand that 9/11 was not the first act of this war you can start to understand why they were able to do so. Over time as the gathered more and more evidence it became clearer and clearer than Al-Qa’ida where behind the attacks.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


It only seemed improbable and unexpected to people at the time if they had little interest in international affairs or recent history. This is one of the unfortunate facts of life in the US: most people have neither the time nor the inclination to keep abreast of recent events abroad. When it comes to current events in afganistan or similar countries, only a small minority will be able to connect the dots when something like 9/11 happens... but that doesn't make them wrong.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by alkesh
reply to post by PsychoReaper4
 


it's called intelligence....


Right
The same intelligence used to prevent these sort of attacks?

Go figure.

Some people must really think the average citizen will stay stupid forever.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


Umm, no official arraignment was done, however, it is a matter of record that Osama was named as a co-conspirator in the indictment of Khaled Shiekh Mohammed for the attacks on 9/11.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 



You need to read President Bush's speech to the Congress shortly after 9/11. He clearly stated that if you harbored,supported or trained terrorists who had/meant to attack us, we were coming. Saddam did all three. Not once was it limited to 9/11. I could add however, that there WERE members of Al Qaeda who sought refuge in Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Please explain what Bush meant by "terrorist" and then please show one piece of evidence said "terrorists" were in Iraq - just one.

Thanks!

CJ



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
9/11 was pretty much solved within a minute after the second plane hit, Osama Bin Laden was accused as the suspect on live TV.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Right, right... who trained and supported OBL in his rise to "power?" who practically made the Mujahideen what they are militarily? Who was proposing publicly to further finance the Taliban $43 million May, 01 for their fight against the cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan?

Oh, wait... that country's not in the ME...



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912

Right, right... who trained and supported OBL in his rise to "power?"



You're trying to insinuate that it was us government money that funded Bin Laden. But do you have any evidence that this is true? I suppose it's not impossible, but I haven't found any yet.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
The planes that flew into the World Trade Center could have been piloted by men, or they could have been piloted by machines.




Think about it. Think about a robot flying those planes. Robotically powered pilots have several advantages over men when it comes to carrying out a mission like 9/11.

A robot does not fear death. A Robot is not "afflicted" by emotions. It doesn't feel pity, it doesn't feel remorse, it can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pain.

If you were going to carry out a 9/11 mission, would you use men or machines? It's an obvious choice. Machines.

But does the technology exist?

YES.

We know about Predator Drones. UAVs. Unmanned stealth bombers with tactical nukes.

Is it really so hard to believe that robot pilots could have done this?

NO.

Yet we still wilfully accept the traditional story while discounting hte possibility of real life terminators that really do exist.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I can't say I have direct evidence for OBL specifically, only several news reports from major outlets. Doesn't negate the other two facts.
edit on 20-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


Yes, we tried to bribe the Taliban to get them to stop destroying sites of religious significance that weren't Muslim in nature and to also try and end some human rights issues. As for creating Bin Laden....HE was the money man for the Arab fighters in Afghanistan. US money was going to native Afghanis.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'll state it again. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Why Iraq? This is like saying a majority of Ecuadoreans were hijackers and we invaded Tibet. Makes tons of sense.


Dude there's no way you can't not know this. The terrorists were Saudi citizens, NOT agents send out by the Saudi gov't.. It's the same reason we didn't level sanctions against Holland after Natalee Holloway was snuffed by Van Der Sloot. We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11- we invaded becuase of horribly bad intelligence saying Iraq was stockpiling illegal weapons. Saddam Hussein being an idiot and wanting to tweak the lion's tail by pretending he was warlord of Iraq instead of trying to diffuse the issue on his end didn't help the situation either. We DID invade Afghanistan because they were openly protecting the ones who did send out the terrorists. It's the same reason we DID level sanctions against Libya for sending out the bombers that destroyed the plane that crashed in Scotland.

I don't mean to sound rude, but jeez, guy, all this was going on and discussed throughout the last ten years and it was your obligation to know this already, particularly if you're claiming to be a "truther with a sincere desire to discover the truth behind the 9/11 attack".



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Geez guy, you think the Saudi intelligence apparatus didn't support bin laden? Where have you been the last ten years? What is a truther anyway?

Also, no, it wasn't bad intelligence. It was manufactured, so in other words it was exactly what they wanted to say.

CJ
edit on 21-5-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Why is that Bin Laden never claimed to have done it?

Surely if it was his doing he's be making another video bragging about it?

Where is the statement from him saying they done it?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join