so? if 9/11 was an inside job then....

I been wondering for a few days and after watching that "9/11 mysteries" video, that if the WTC disasters was orchestrated by the government, then does that mean that the US is safe from another major attack. Well at least One as well orchestrated planned and executed, but did fail to cover their tracks. Maybe Bush jr. really did think the American people really are that stupid.

Is the Next attack going to be Goverment job again or is it going to be a legitimate terrorist group?... Although I guess if the goverment really did execute the TWC disasters they can be called terrorists as well. As we all know a terrorist is someone who causes terror.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by dvd500]

9/11 wasn't the only event that had suspicious goings-on surrounding it.

For the Oklahoma City Bombing, did you ever see the pic of that Ryder truck in a military base near Oklahoma some weeks before the bombing? Or hear of the unexploded charges removed from the building?

What about the 1993 WTC bombing? Did you ever read of how the FBI was allegedly trying to lure a "terrorist cell" into doing something illegal so they could bust them? The FBI was claiming to have offered non-functioning explosives to terrorist suspects by proxy and trying to instigate a bombing. Of course when it actually happened, those were the scapegoats, and that was the FBI's story, since there was already too much evidence for them to claim no involvement (their contact had recorded hours of conversations with them over the phone when he became suspicious; these are either destroyed by now or still classified). An FBI special agent also testified in court, a Dr. Whitehurst, that he had been pressured to reach pre-formed conclusions about the nature of the explosive itself, which suggests something foul in regards to where the actual device(s) came from.

You may already be familiar with what was proposed in Operation Northwoods.

Even in other countries, the Jakarta and Bali bombings have become controversial due to nature of the explosions (massive energy releases from relatively small areas, ie, the inside of a car; the explanations of the types of explosives used shifted pretty often in the case of the Bali bombing at least, from C4, to an FAE, to all kinds of garbage, nothing explaining great thermal releases for large distances, large craters in the ground, etc.), foreign leaders in those areas publically suggesting Western involvement. Certain bombings in the Mid-East, like the bombing of a Mosque that ALL Muslims considered holy, displayed odd damage, as a roof was ripped out with the insides standing fine (shaped charge?), much concrete turned to fine dust, and yet rebar still intact. What explosives are these terrorists using, exactly?


The next big attack, the next 9/11, so to speak, will be another one of these, in my opinion. They've been saying we're going to get nuked by a terrorist for years, so that's what I'm guessing is coming. Either a dirty nuke (conventional explosive with radioactive material strapped on), or something more sophisticated, and then they throw a fit and invade a few countries, like Iran, all the while talking about how we should have gotten them earlier when we knew they were developing nukes (for energy, big difference) but the damned liberals were too pansy to invade for no reason! Either that or some bio-terror attack, is what I'm expecting anyway. Just my couple cents on that.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by bsbray11]

We need to remind ourselves that these "attacks" are manipulative pretexts to establish cause for engaging in a desired military action.

If we're going to speculate on what type of attack will be next, we should consider what hints are coming from the Administration. While we continue to ignore N. Korea because of a conspicuous lack of oil reserves, Iran and Venezuela are emerging as the next "cause" of an event that would inspire military response.

My money is on a "sudden" emergence of terrorist activity in South America.

Ive heard the Oklahoma city bombing was actually a supposed dry run for WTC, sort of a test to see ia A) a federal bulding can be rigged for undedected expolosives and B) to see if the public will buy into a scape goat and beging the Terrorism craze.

If we're going to speculate on what type of attack will be next, we should consider what hints are coming from the Administration. While we continue to ignore N. Korea because of a conspicuous lack of oil reserves, Iran and Venezuela are emerging as the next "cause" of an event that would inspire military response

I totally agree with you we should be looking for hints on what the Government wants next. and thank God for the internet; the govermnet finds it harder and harder to get away with crimes like WTC, War on iraq etc etc. it's only a matter of time for the goverment to control the Internet completely so websites like this who are full of people searching for the truth are shut down, and the truth hidden for ever. kind of like how they got rid of all the 9/11 rubble so it coudnt; be examined and find the truth. By the way getting rid of evidence like that is illegal. really makes you think what they are hiding.

1. why is there no martial law
2. been another attack to implement martial law
3. ANother attack to enter Iran
4. Another attack to enter Syria

What it the government waiting for? i know I would not do it during an election season, as it would be suicide. I remember people proclaiming it would occur during the last election and bring in "King Bush". This is dillusional.

Indicators are Dow is high, oil is low, economy on the upswing after 5 years. It is a ripe time for an attack. Not because we need oil, or because Cheney wants power, but because radical Islamic terrorists want it to happen.

as far as Oklahoma City, Padilla was #2 in my opinion, but he was not a rogue CIA agent. This was the first homegrown recruitment, and i am sure that there are many more out there.

Benevolence International Foundation connections between NIchols and Padilla cannot be overlooked.

9/11 will happen again, it is just a matter of time and resource.

Originally posted by esdad71
1. why is there no martial law

Have you been paying attention to recent news events? Now, U.S. Citizens can be tried as "enemy combatants" without due process.

2. been another attack to implement martial law

See above response to the continued "threat of attack".

3. ANother attack to enter Iran

Have patience.

4. Another attack to enter Syria

There won't be.

Is there a 'enemy combatant' that is held right now that should not be?

I pay attention to news events, thanks. Again, Look at the Dow and oil prices, and compare them to 9/11. The complacency among citizens.

However, Why would the government HAVE NOT commited a second 9/11 by now?

Originally posted by esdad71
Is there a 'enemy combatant' that is held right now that should not be?

We wouldn't know, now would we? Besides the ones at Gitmo, anyway, and all the other secret detention bases located wherever the hell they are.

Asking why we haven't had another 9/11 on American soil by now is as pointless as asking why we should have had one by now, because if you think you can present a case for either (as the questions themselves would suggest), taking all the motives and etc. into account and thinking you have the whole situation worked out so that you know exactly when they're supposed to happen, then you just don't know what you're talking about. Unless you're someone that actually engineers these things, you wouldn't know. That simple. Don't kid yourself.

BS, many posters on here scream that this is a inside gov't job, and that it is to self promote an agenda. That is why I ask, that if they did one, why have we not seen another? THe government has SO MUCH to gain accordning to many of these posts, so why would they wait. It makes NO sense. They should have struck 6 months after 9/11, people would still be in shock and I believe many rights we have today would not be here. That is what I would have done.

Tell me why they would wait?

[edit on 5-10-2006 by esdad71]

Do you really think these people would be in office right now if we kept getting terror attacks? Really? It doesn't happen all at once. You think they don't know that alot of people would stand up to a police state happening suddenly? We the people are still allowed to own guns. Why do you think they are trying to take the guns away?

We still have the right to vote. Congress gets elected every 2 years. You really think the people here would just bow down even if there was a terror attack? These plans take decades to accomplish IMO. They take away rights just a little bit at a time. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent.

If there is another attack in Mainland USA and it is a terrorist group it would have Terrorist Group written all over it. But if its got Terrorist group written all over it with big holes in the story then its a well orchastrated inside job....

< High on E. dunno if what i wrote makes sense

[edit on 6-10-2006 by And3h]

The next big attack could actually be a legitimate islamic extremist attack. The USA has certainly radicalized enough of the Middle East with their imperial wars upon them to create a powerful retaliatory response.

Originally posted by esdad71
BS, many posters on here scream that this is a inside gov't job, and that it is to self promote an agenda. That is why I ask, that if they did one, why have we not seen another? THe government has SO MUCH to gain accordning to many of these posts, so why would they wait. It makes NO sense. They should have struck 6 months after 9/11, people would still be in shock and I believe many rights we have today would not be here. That is what I would have done.

Tell me why they would wait?

Clearly the USA isn't ready to remove the good intentioned but bumbling altruism mask to reveal what lies underneath. At least for the moment.

Another attack on the USA, at least a big one, would destroy what little public confidence remains in their government's ability to protect them with how the War on Terror is currently being conducted.

If I was going to start a false pretext for an ongoing war and keep dissention to a minimum within an alleged democratic republic, I would certainly do as little (visibly) to constrain my constituency as I could to alleviate backlash from those who would only start to dissent if they were physically affected by new restrictive policies. No military draft certainly helps out as well.

The U.S. government tolerated a lot of dissention before Ford finally removed the troops from Vietnam. The anti-war dissention we see today is nothing in comparison. Therefore the conflicts the USA is engaged in will likely last for quite some time. And thats exactly what those in power wish it to be.

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Frith]