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

reply to post by Nicorette


I broadly agree with your analysis but you seem to me to be supporting the OP.

Some truthers say that 9/11 was a false flag for invasion of Iraq but, as you mention, only feeble unsubstantiated allegations were made to connect Iraq and these were soon dropped in favour of WMD and failure to adhere to UN resolutions.

This therefore begs the question; why did this supposedly complex and ruthless "inside job" singularly fail to set up the right fall guys when so much else was planned to a tee.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


To point out the well known fact that many poppies are grown in Afghanistan does nothing in itself to support the allegation of a false flag for invasion of that country.

Can you please specify how this benefited the major supposed perps, Bush/Cheney ? Well- heeled men already; why should they risk their own lives and the destruction of their political party for more dollars and how would it work anyway ?

Why would the raft of experts and professionals in the military, aviation, demolition, communications, air traffic control, radar etc etc, necessary if 9/11 was an "inside job", throw over everything they had held dear up to that point and conspire to murder thousands of fellow citizens ? For drug money ? Are you serious ?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I guess the next question should be why many of the supposed Saudi Arabian (like Osama Bin Laden) hijackers were found to be alive and well. Then there's the question about the likelihood a passport belonging to one of the hijackers would flutter down to the street from a fireball plane wreck and into the hands of a police officer. I agree there are LOTS of unanswered questions.

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I guess the next question should be why many of the supposed Saudi Arabian (like Osama Bin Laden) hijackers were found to be alive and well. Then there's the question about the likelihood a passport belonging to one of the hijackers would flutter down to the street from a fireball plane wreck and into the hands of a police officer. I agree there are LOTS of unanswered questions.

It is time truthers accepted that flimsy documentation can and does survive horrendous accidents :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by Alfie1


How likely is that though Alfie1, and be honest?
Line 2

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by markygee

 

Afghanistan is difficult to defend? Easy to take? I'd have a brief look at the history of the place if I was you.

Besides, it can be a land grab and still 9/11 doesn't have to have been a false flag. Why no Iraqi hijackers? Why no Afghan hijackers?

ok I meant that us and uk forces have learnt to try and control what they need not try and dominate every piece of the land, in a take what what you need and leave the rest type of attitude.
Or am I still mistaken?

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.

Your pint is a valid one

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush effectively said to the CIA that it was saddam and he wanted that to be investigated before any terrorist link. Then in the run up to the Iraq war American intelligence was fed false information form a Al’Qa’Ida operative who trained militants in resistance to interrogation and how to feed false information to interrogators. The CIA knew that this information was going to be fake however the Bush administration used it as a justification for war.

Now the reasons for bush wanting to blame Saddam go back to his roots in neo-conservatism however I am starting to digress. With the fact that Bush wanted to blame this on Saddam and the eventual war it does provide further evidence that disputes some 9/11 conspiracies. Why not just plant a few Iraqis on the plane and say they were the ring leaders who helped Al’Qa’Ida in Afghanistan to plan the attack. That way they have justification to attack both states.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I broadly agree with your analysis but you seem to me to be supporting the OP.

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.

Originally posted by Alfie1 Some truthers say that 9/11 was a false flag for invasion of Iraq but, as you mention, only feeble unsubstantiated allegations were made to connect Iraq and these were soon dropped in favour of WMD and failure to adhere to UN resolutions.

This therefore begs the question; why did this supposedly complex and ruthless "inside job" singularly fail to set up the right fall guys when so much else was planned to a tee.

The OP's question seems to imply, and you make it explicit, that if the Iraqis weren't set up, then there wasn't a false flag attack, therefore no conspiracy.

To me, that doesn't follow, that is a 'false dilemma' fallacy - it presumes an original false flag attack could only be directed at Iraq and not Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It certainly could have been used against Saudi Arabia too, for that matter.

For me to answer that definitively would be to claim prescient knowledge of what happened that day, who did it, and why. I labor under no such delusions. But was Iraq really the "right" fall guy?

There could be any number of reasons why Iraq was not targeted. For example, as another poster said earlier if Iraq had been set up they would have denied it vigorously, and Security Council members like Russia and China, or other countries with oil concessions there, like France, might have demanded actual proof.

Far fewer people were going to stand up and demand real proof for the more odious Al-Qaeda network who had engaged in plenty of real terrorism in the past. The Taliban did however ask for this proof, and were ignored.

There were other geopolitical reasons many Establishment figures wanted a strong U.S. military presence in Central Asia, mostly to do with Brezinski's Grand Chessboard ideas: to challenge Russia and China in the Caspian and Kazakhstan energy regions, to strengthen the string of bases surrounding China and Russia which are needed - in this line of reasoning - to perpetuate American, and hence Western corporate, military hegemony over the world.

It seems to me the Neocon Zionists and their allies in the Pentagon, the defense industry, and the energy cartel were the ones who wanted a ground war in Iraq, and they got it soon after, without even needing a false flag attack. They just brazenly lied their way into it.

There's much to suggest they planned on having that war regardless (PNAC documents, Paul O'Neill's book, Rumsfeld's infamous "roll them all up" memo), but invading Afghanistan - bordering China, in the traditional Russian sphere of influence, and a Pakistani ally - may have needed a more diplomatically palatable excuse.

If anything, the gross injustice of the Iraq war and the illegal grounds on which it was fought only illuminate the character of segments of the corrupt American Establishment: if they will lie their way into a war that kills 3,000+ American soldiers and God knows how many Iraqis, then surely they have demonstrated such a low level of moral decrepitude that would allow at least a handful of them to cooperate with the ISI or Al-Qaeda or whomever to encourage or permit or arrange for the attacks on 9/11.

They certainly ruthlessly exploited the event for all it was worth afterward.

Originally posted by Nicorette

Originally posted by Alfie1
I broadly agree with your analysis but you seem to me to be supporting the OP.

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.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that nobody has said that 9/11 was a "false flag" designed to take the US into war with Iraq?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you seriously trying to tell me that nobody has said that 9/11 was a "false flag" designed to take the US into war with Iraq?

I wouldn't say "no one" has said it - but nobody serious.

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.

Even people like Michael Ruppert put it in broader strokes: 9/11 was the pretext for the US to go after broader geopolitical objectives, including Iraq and Central Asia.

Isn't that the whole premise of your thread, after all? "Why DIDN'T they pin it on Iraq?" you asked.

And I explained to you my ideas on why that may not have desirable or necessary or possible, refuting your notion that if it wasn't blamed on Iraq it couldn't have been a conspiracy - but you didn't address that part of the post.

reply to post by Nicorette


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.

You're being disingenuous when you say that "nobody serious" tried to pitch it as such. When Iraq was at its height it was indeed a general assumption that this was the case. Look at threads here circa 2006. Indeed look at the view of the US public around 2003. Many thought that Saddam did have something to do with 9/11, and the government didn't seriously try to disabuse anyone of that notion.

This is one of many problems I have with conspiracies. I'm not saying they never happen, but it's notable that they always explain exactly what's happening right now, that month. Bush is gone, so actually the jews did it and it wasn't a Halliburton oil grab in Iraq... It's about Afghanistan (if that war had wound up and Iraq was still blazing I'm sure it would be the reverse)... I'm sure some bright spark has tried to tie the oil spill to 9/11.

I suppose this is because the pattern brings a kind of narrative closure to events. People find it satisfying, in a Jungian sense. I should also perhaps point out that the reverse of your logic is also true - just because it was used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan, does not prove that it was a flase flag.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Since I was in highschool in the 50's I have a fair recollection of what went on then. There was heroin. I only saw it in very small amounts. When we went to Afghanistan they were exporting 300 tons a yr. You are right about a reduction in the amount produced last year. It was only 7800 tons, down from 8500 tons the previous year. There is real evidence that suitcases, chests and pallets, yes pallets of U.S. cash being flown out of Afghanistan to Dubai and Switzerland.

There are more contractors in Afghanistan than military. There can't be that many U.S. civilians to guard, but they also deliver fuel at $400.00 a gallon. If you think they are not in the drug buisness what do you think they are doing?

It may seem like a negative rant to some people but for my part it is just a realization that things are much worse than anybody is telling you. The numbers are from Interpol, State Dept, U.S. Congress, and the Afghan gov.

It is that survival instinct, that feeling about the gulf that this is a slow motion train wreck that the people in charge are unable or unwilling to deal with. I would surely like to be wrong but experience tells me be aware of the most likely result of the situation that presents itself. And follow the money.



Lifetime student. Partime anylyst. Sometime clairvoyant.

Some's observations have been skewed a bit.

Iraq was invaded in 1993 after they invaded Kuwait, which was a fight over what the press dubbed: "slant drilling". Where, Iraq was drilling at the border of those two countries into Kuwait for their oil. A war erupted, and Iraqi forces ransacked Kuwait. Murdering and pilaging everything. Kuwait exercised it's option as a member of NATO and enlisted the United States. However, it's interesting to note, very few members of NATO backed the war.

It was at this time Saudi Arabia was utilized as a launching pad for strikes into Iraq. Which offended Osama B.L. He considers the ground holy and fouled by US forces. He attacked the World Trade Center the same year (1993) with a truck bomb in the parking garage located below the ground floor. It failed to topple the tower. Then, the US recognized the potential for terrorists attacks, and listed the cells, most significant was Al Qaeda.

Lax procedures, and others intentions according to some, led to the successfull attack in 2001, where America woke with it's news lines jammed with a "Live" attack.

The strikes thickened, and then the war went to two fronts. Then, multiple incursions.

No, 9/11 was not the catalyst, but rather 'part of'.


[edit on 7/14/2010 by passingthought]

reply to post by WATCHER.1


You point to a correlation between the presence of the US and the increase in opium export, but that's not de facto evidence that the US is involved in the trade. Indeed if they are, then why did the exports fall? Surely they would want to keep increasing supply?

Also, if your numbers are right then the figures don't add up. The "farm gate" price of the stuff is about 100 dollars a kilo, so even if you forget about costs you're only getting something like 78 million dollars worth of opium last year. Even assuming that the US government controls its exports almost to street level, net of costs you're still not really justifying the gigantic investment required to get it.

And that requires you to believe that the US actively transports and exports the product unnoticed, and controls the networks required to distribute it. I think that's pretty unlikely.

It’s quite interesting the number of people here who are saying that the reason they couldn’t blame the false flag operation on Iraq was because the Iraqi intelligence services (Mukhabarat as they were called under Saddam) would exploit the plot. I have a number of problems with this claim. First of all it is assuming that the Mukhabarat had the technical capability to do so and also had people capable of discovering the plot. The second problem is that terrorist attacks in the past have been accused of being backed by a state sponsor such as the pan am 103 attacks. However there is significant evidence to assume that this conclusion was debatable at the least. And the information in my first post suggests that it was a policy of the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Al’Qa’Ida repeatedly

We have other people who are saying the motivation for blaming Iraq over Afghanistan was because the Americans stood to benefit from the opium trade. Not only is this pure speculation and conspiracy but it is also illogical. Iraq as we all know has vast oil reserves that are worth far more than any amount of opium.

Taking all of this into account coupled by the eventual decision of the administration to invade Iraq I think the OP has posted a very significant question that the 9/11 truth movement has to address. The answer to this question may not rule out any false flag operation but it does have to be satisfactory answered by the truth movement. This question has not yet be answered on this thread and it is a very important question.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by kevinunknown]

Oh and a S&F for such a important question.

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.

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.

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.