Goverment is behind 9/11

[shrtysskat8]

i dont know if you guys seen this or maybe it was posted alredy, but got to see this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194
bush's administration lost that little tiny bit of respect it had in my eyes.

 

[Help?]

Why did the US air force thought that taking out the plane would be worse than having it crashed into the WTC? How come Hussein has been caught so fast after US invaded Iraq? How come Osama still hasn't been caught?





Does anybody know, because i don't.

 

[Virgo]

just finished watching it all I can say atm is..... WOW

 

[King]

just finished watching it all I can say atm is..... WOW

Man!!!!!!!!!!!!And all of it does make sense, where are the ****in 10tons titanium engines???THEY VAPORIZED?? And there was no damage by the wings of the planes????And all that explosions in WTC????And that light reflection on the nose of the plane??????????****in this video should be shown in every ****in channel world wide.

 

[Rocky]

just finished watching it all I can say atm is..... WOW

same here

 

[Jambo Den]

Whoa whoa, let's calm our beans here chaps.

The video, whilst highlighting flaws in the "official" explanation of events of 9/11 also contains some interesting approaches (interesting that there are no face-to-face interviews with bereaved relatives, for instance) in their argument and an overriding neurotic "everyone in authority is out to get me" persecution complex. On the surface, you do feel inclined, hell, perversely almost want to believe this theory. The current American administration is one of the most detested in history, right? Wouldn't it suit anti-Bush ends to argue that 9/11 was perpetuated by Bush so we could have a purpose in our cause? Ironically, the "Smoking gun" for the left wingers in their fight against Bush as there is in Iraq?

The internet has given a platform to people arguing over historical fact. One of the consequences is that there seems to be a competition amongst conspiracy theorists to construct theories more incredible than the other and increasingly vitriolic against people in a position of authority. As the clip from Hunter S Thompson goes in that video; "who stands to benefit? who has the opportunity and motive?"

As with any media text you see, take it with a good deal of caution.

 

[Vagegast]

Denis, I wanted be the first one to call bull****

 

[Jambo Den]

My reply was bland as hell. My mind isnae working too great at the mo to come up with specific points as to why I don't buy it.

The floor is yours.

 

[Jambo Den]

Better yet, we get Big Bill O'Reilly on this terrorist scum.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Well, actually I endorse some sort of revisionist 9/11, but just not one that takes so much time to determine the official story is inaccurate using tremendous scientific and oral proof, and then when they get to the "who did it" part they just assume that it was Bush or the NSA or whatever. Honestly, Bush was in office for what, 8 months? That plan could not have been coordinated under his watch, plain and simple.

 

[Run DMB]

Wait, wait, wait... are you telling me that Bush got away with staging 4 different flight hijackings, 3 different airplane crashes, two military strikes on civilians and two planned detonations of large corporate buildings, but Clinton couldn't get away with getting his knob polished by an intern?

 

[Run DMB]

I mean, the evidence is definitely there that something different happened than the official story. But to suggest that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush & Co is preposterous. It's an extremely elaborate plan, needlessly elaborate and complicated, one with no room for error but a high probability of it, and it would have to involve way too many people (all of whom would have to be, well, evil) to be kept under wraps. And the motive just isn't strong enough.

 

[BayernBoz]

I mean, the evidence is definitely there that something different happened than the official story. But to suggest that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush & Co is preposterous. It's an extremely elaborate plan, needlessly elaborate and complicated, one with no room for error but a high probability of it, and it would have to involve way too many people (all of whom would have to be, well, evil) to be kept under wraps. And the motive just isn't strong enough.

I think that the motive is strong enough, but i do agree with the first part of what you said.

The video did raise my eyebrow on a couple of those points. One that had me wondering quite a bit was the Pentagon strike. He does have some good evidence, but then it is so obvious that he does exaggerate on some of the evidence.

 

[Run DMB]

I think that the motive is strong enough, but i do agree with the first part of what you said.

What I meant was that it is not strong enough to justify the huge risk undertaken.

 

[BayernBoz]

What I meant was that it is not strong enough to justify the huge risk undertaken.

well in that case, i agree. keep in mind though that your statement is only true because it's spoken looking through your eyes, but whoever had that motive might've easily been blinded by it that they would not think about the risk. hope that makes sense.

 

[AhmedK]

Yeah, I agree with Arash, Den, and the rev. DMB. One thing I have on my mind, which may have been covered in the vid(so far I have only watched 5 minutes of it). Why did Osama Bin Laden say he had nothing to do with the plot? He didn't do that in africa, and attack which killed many muslims and could have made him look bad in the Islamic world. And why after making tape after tape, all with the same message, that he did not do it, did Al Queda turn around and say they DID do it?


Another idea, the CIA, FBI, and other agencies are well known for their covert "assistance". The CIA did it in Cuba with rebels in order to try and bring down Castro. What if they did the same thing with Al Queda? Got some Arab christians from Lebanon, Egypt, and North Africa to join Al queda, gave them the funding, training, all through arabs. I think at the least that would explain why it was so easy for them to do it.

 

[Parra Power]

why is it that the only reports of the pentagon attacks that mentioned missiles have witnesses only "hearing" what they thought was a missile? why was the government so successful in gagging media so that "nobody wanted" some of these witness's stories, and at the same time they have major international media apparently totally contradicting the official statements? if this whole thing was staged and so well planned/executed, surely they'd make it less obvious?!? surely it would have been an easier and more compelling plot if they actually flew a PLANE that would leave plane-like damage into the pentagon. surely they would have made sure the whole world wouldnt be hearing that "there is nothing there except a hole in the ground" from the 'failed' hijacking. and why would they go through the whole "war on terror", bin laden, afghanistan, WMD bull**** stories if by claiming that sadam was launching missiles would have imediately given justification for a war on iraq, which was what they supposedly wanted? at least that way they wouldnt have discrepancies around holes in walls, or half the country and most of the world criticising an "illegal war".

 

[Shindig]

No Government would put that much time, planning and effort in killing it's own people. Plus, the video (mainly due to the player's resulotion) constantly appears grainy. Hence, I can't judge much.

"Look at the fuselage.... see how it differs from a normal plane..."

Sorry, I'm not a plane spotter.

As for the confiscation of the Pentagon tape. That has me worried. To release only 5 frames of the tape is going to give people the impression that they're hiding something. Of course, the administration is hiding something. Evidence of a massive security f**k up.

The controlled appearance of the collapsing towers also has me worried. Aviation fuel can, quite honestly, burn like a bugger. His comparisons with buildings that burned for 6 hours and such. Those fires weren't consequences of a passenger jet smacking into them. The consequent number of explosions can be explained away, too. It's an office building with many electric appliances. And the jet fuel, how ever much has found it's way down the building, could pop along the way.

However, the Bush administration would have motives for pulling this off. The climate of fear, The Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

I'm undecided, basically. It could be possible, but it'd involve an unbeleiveable ammount of time, planning and funding to effectively pull such a genocide off.

 

[PhiLLer]

Of course there is more behind 9/11 than we are led to believe. Goverments hide things from the public on a daily basis and the same goes for this tragedy, there's obviously a massive cover-up involved.

I'm not quite sure the extend of it, whether they are just embarassed that security was non-existent or whether there's an even more sinister edge to it. Ever since 9/11 occured I always had my doubts. I mean towers collapsing the way they did, that didn't seem right. Plus the hole in the side of the Pentagon doesn't bare any evidence that a commercial airliner flew right into it.
On the other hand you have to take these documentaries with a pinch of salt because they can be very good at fuelling the fire with their "evidence". So while they make a very good case for some points, other parts have to be taken not so direct.

Maybe one day we will find out what really happened...in hundreds of years or something like that.

 

[Shindig]

The Pentagon debris confuses me. There's a page that shows, in some detail, that a passenger jet could have caused that damage. With the landing gear up, it possibly could.

However, as a counterclaim, we hear numerous accounts of "Well, something flew over the roof of my car". A passenger jet, in close proximity to a car, would mean curtains to the car. As the video shown. I'd like to think this was just due to a hilarious attempt to shoot a plane down, missing by miles a nailing the Pentagon.