Conquer Club

Clearly those who have crazy conspiracy theories were responsible for the real 9-11 conspiracy! If you claim crazy stuff like no black boxes found when 2 were found, or it was explosives when that would be harder than just flying planes into twin towers, you are trying to make the conspiracy theories look dumb, and thus hiding the *true* conspiracy.

So we just need to find out whether these crazy claimers really work for the american, isreali or russian spy agency!

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Communists

The source of all our problems.

No kidding.

They did 9/11.

Also: killed your grandmother.

multilis wrote:Clearly those who have crazy conspiracy theories were responsible for the real 9-11 conspiracy! If you claim crazy stuff like no black boxes found when 2 were found, or it was explosives when that would be harder than just flying planes into twin towers, you are trying to make the conspiracy theories look dumb, and thus hiding the *true* conspiracy.

So we just need to find out whether these crazy claimers really work for the american, isreali or russian spy agency!

My bet is on the Islamo-Feminista-Fascist-Obamanite Commune!

Frigidus wrote:

multilis wrote:Clearly those who have crazy conspiracy theories were responsible for the real 9-11 conspiracy! If you claim crazy stuff like no black boxes found when 2 were found, or it was explosives when that would be harder than just flying planes into twin towers, you are trying to make the conspiracy theories look dumb, and thus hiding the *true* conspiracy.

So we just need to find out whether these crazy claimers really work for the american, isreali or russian spy agency!

My bet is on the Islamo-Feminista-Fascist-Obamanite Commune!

The commies weren't involved?

It was actually an anarchosyndicalist commune.

It's alright Jay. You have made me laugh enough to make me wanna go another round here.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hahaa Jay!

Ok, here was my old thread on this:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=71907&hilit=911+World+Trade+Center+WTC+7

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, it seems that after your hashing and re-hashing, you would be well-informed on such an issue. So, would you mind explaining how the alleged planned demolition (through the use of explosives before the passanger jets) looks in no way like other planned and legal building demolitions? (If you need a point of reference, then go skim through the video shortly after 20:00).

There is expert corroboration. The top European controlled demolitions expert confirms that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. 27-year controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko states: “This is controlled demolition…it starts from below.” “They have simply blown away columns…A team of experts did this…This is professional work, without any doubt.”

The official story tells us that the steel was softened. But if that was the case and this building fell due to fires, the fires, by their nature, creep from place to place leaving one area cool and burning another area. That would force an asymmetrical collapse. The building would tip over. So for the first time in history, fires have done what only a handful of demolition companies are capable of doing.”
-Richard Gage

jay_a2j wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Children

The source of all our problems.

No kidding.

Not the children!

multilis wrote:Clearly those who have crazy conspiracy theories were responsible for the real 9-11 conspiracy! If you claim crazy stuff like no black boxes found when 2 were found, or it was explosives when that would be harder than just flying planes into twin towers, you are trying to make the conspiracy theories look dumb, and thus hiding the *true* conspiracy.

So we just need to find out whether these crazy claimers really work for the american, isreali or russian spy agency!

According to the 911 Commission Report none of the black boxes were recovered. And that, is the "official story". The big problem I've found, and it no doubt happens on the conspiracy side as well, is that people push all kinds of "false information" because it validates their position. I'd love to hear your source for the finding of 2 black boxes because the 911 Report said none were found.


Dude, think for yourself.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

There is expert corroboration. The top European controlled demolitions expert confirms that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. 27-year controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko states: “This is controlled demolition…it starts from below.” “They have simply blown away columns…A team of experts did this…This is professional work, without any doubt.”

The official story tells us that the steel was softened. But if that was the case and this building fell due to fires, the fires, by their nature, creep from place to place leaving one area cool and burning another area. That would force an asymmetrical collapse. The building would tip over. So for the first time in history, fires have done what only a handful of demolition companies are capable of doing.”
-Richard Gage

That quote is retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrUplpIDmOA
As you can clearly see, it does not start from below, it starts where the planes hit. And, the tops of the building do tip.

hecter wrote:That quote is retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrUplpIDmOA
As you can clearly see, it does not start from below, it starts where the planes hit. And, the tops of the building do tip.

If it starts from below, then you can't see it start because these buildings had many sub levels. The building doesn't end where the pavement begins.

What is that guy's name, Manny Ramirez I think? The janitor who was in one of the sub levels when an explosion happened levels beneath him. He gets quoted all the time.

The second thing that you said was in reference to what Richard Gage said, but he said that the buildings would tip over (and fall), not fall straight down.

Titanic wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:

Titanic wrote:If Pearl Harbour was a conspiracy, would you still consider it a good conspiracy considering the results?

It was great for America. Sure they had a few battleships sunk in the harbour and approx. 3000 Americans got killed, but they (the country) went onto becoming a huge factory for making weapons for the allies. Safe from being bombed due to the 2 rather large oceans that border it. They made a ton of money from that war. All they needed was the right episode to make all Americans ok with them entering it.

England went from superpower to super in debt to the Americans during ww2. We only just finished paying off the WW2 debt 1 year before 9/11. then it was iraq, afganistan then the banks imploded.

England has been dealt 60 years of shit, whilst the defeated Germans and Japs went onto build greater manufacturing bases (no armies after ww2) than the home of the industrial revolution, England. Now since that, the pen pushers have decided it's cheaper to make stuff somewhere else and pay some Indian or Chinese worker f*ck all to make a tv, playstation, mobile phone etc.


So yeah, Japan attacking pearl harbour was a great bit of business for America. 3000 dead v the $ income = win win for the USA economy.

Your from UK, cool, me too. 100% agree with what you said, WWII was the best thing to ever happen to the USA.

I got news for you - most of the Middle East was miffed when we promised to leave them in peace once WWII was done and instead we forced the Jews in and Arabs out. Didn't hear about too many terrorist attacks before that did you? And the US made out the best because besides Pearl Harbor, we had no attacks on our homeland. When you get bombed to shit, there tends to be money spent to fix it. But I digress.

Does anyone honestly believe that a conspiracy as large as 9/11 could be pulled off by the government without someone spilling the beans? You think people would just plant bombs meant to kill thousands of their own countrymen without a second thought? I don't give a crap what kind of "evidence" you have, there's no way a conspiracy like that goes off and 8 years later nobody has come forward offering any evidence to that fact. You can question all you like, but you might as well spend your time looking for evidence the boogey man exists.

AgentSmith88 wrote:
Does anyone honestly believe that a conspiracy as large as 9/11 could be pulled off by the government without someone spilling the beans? You think people would just plant bombs meant to kill thousands of their own countrymen without a second thought? I don't give a crap what kind of "evidence" you have, there's no way a conspiracy like that goes off and 8 years later nobody has come forward offering any evidence to that fact. You can question all you like, but you might as well spend your time looking for evidence the boogey man exists.

Except there are people who are scared into not talking. Anyone who may have known something behind 911 knows that they are as good as dead if they open their mouth. (One guy claims he heard what was on one of the black boxes and was going to talk about it then all of the sudden reneged) So we are left with a few who are brave enough to speak out because they know "the official story" doesn't make sense but were not involved in the cover up directly. Black boxes are almost ALWAYS recovered, yet on 911, 4 vanished.


Hey, someone here call the FBI and ask them what happened to the black boxes?

AgentSmith88 wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:

Titanic wrote:If Pearl Harbour was a conspiracy, would you still consider it a good conspiracy considering the results?

It was great for America. Sure they had a few battleships sunk in the harbour and approx. 3000 Americans got killed, but they (the country) went onto becoming a huge factory for making weapons for the allies. Safe from being bombed due to the 2 rather large oceans that border it. They made a ton of money from that war. All they needed was the right episode to make all Americans ok with them entering it.

England went from superpower to super in debt to the Americans during ww2. We only just finished paying off the WW2 debt 1 year before 9/11. then it was iraq, afganistan then the banks imploded.

England has been dealt 60 years of shit, whilst the defeated Germans and Japs went onto build greater manufacturing bases (no armies after ww2) than the home of the industrial revolution, England. Now since that, the pen pushers have decided it's cheaper to make stuff somewhere else and pay some Indian or Chinese worker f*ck all to make a tv, playstation, mobile phone etc.


So yeah, Japan attacking pearl harbour was a great bit of business for America. 3000 dead v the $ income = win win for the USA economy.

Your from UK, cool, me too. 100% agree with what you said, WWII was the best thing to ever happen to the USA.

I got news for you - most of the Middle East was miffed when we promised to leave them in peace once WWII was done and instead we forced the Jews in and Arabs out. Didn't hear about too many terrorist attacks before that did you? And the US made out the best because besides Pearl Harbor, we had no attacks on our homeland. When you get bombed to shit, there tends to be money spent to fix it. But I digress.

Does anyone honestly believe that a conspiracy as large as 9/11 could be pulled off by the government without someone spilling the beans? You think people would just plant bombs meant to kill thousands of their own countrymen without a second thought? I don't give a crap what kind of "evidence" you have, there's no way a conspiracy like that goes off and 8 years later nobody has come forward offering any evidence to that fact. You can question all you like, but you might as well spend your time looking for evidence the boogey man exists.

Found him.



And it appears that there's ton of video evidence of this boogey man figure. Also, many reports in literature.

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:
Does anyone honestly believe that a conspiracy as large as 9/11 could be pulled off by the government without someone spilling the beans? You think people would just plant bombs meant to kill thousands of their own countrymen without a second thought? I don't give a crap what kind of "evidence" you have, there's no way a conspiracy like that goes off and 8 years later nobody has come forward offering any evidence to that fact. You can question all you like, but you might as well spend your time looking for evidence the boogey man exists.

Except there are people who are scared into not talking. Anyone who may have known something behind 911 knows that they are as good as dead if they open their mouth. (One guy claims he heard what was on one of the black boxes and was going to talk about it then all of the sudden reneged) So we are left with a few who are brave enough to speak out because they know "the official story" doesn't make sense but were not involved in the cover up directly. Black boxes are almost ALWAYS recovered, yet on 911, 4 vanished.


Hey, someone here call the FBI and ask them what happened to the black boxes?

Yeah, I'm sure if someone went to the press and said "Hey, I have evidence/direct knowledge of the government playing a part in the attacks on 9/11" he would suddenly be assassinated. Seriously, are you that stupid? That wouldn't look suspicious at all.

Anyway, you missed my point. Do you think the government could get demolitions experts to just blow up a building in this country? Say you could find somebody who was willing to do it. The would need to be someone who hates this country. Those who plan terrorist attacks like that are always bragging about their deeds. So you couldn't find someone who loves this country because they would refuse to do it, and someone who hates the country would spill the beans (bombs unify whereas finding out the government planned attacks on their own country could be much worse). And that's just one person. It would take tons of people coordinating to pull off a job like that and you don't think at least 1 person would run to the media with a least a little bit of proof? You're looking to try and find something that isn't there. Honestly I would believe in aliens or scientology before any of the crackpot conspiracies about 9/11.

AgentSmith88 wrote:
Anyway, you missed my point. Do you think the government could get demolitions experts to just blow up a building in this country? Say you could find somebody who was willing to do it. The would need to be someone who hates this country. Those who plan terrorist attacks like that are always bragging about their deeds. So you couldn't find someone who loves this country because they would refuse to do it, and someone who hates the country would spill the beans (bombs unify whereas finding out the government planned attacks on their own country could be much worse). And that's just one person. It would take tons of people coordinating to pull off a job like that and you don't think at least 1 person would run to the media with a least a little bit of proof? You're looking to try and find something that isn't there. Honestly I would believe in aliens or scientology before any of the crackpot conspiracies about 9/11.

Thermite can be made into a paint. Construction workers could have painted the explosives on without even knowing that they were doing so.


Yeah, your government cares about you. Anyone remember that old guy from the UK that pleaded with his government to save his life? He was beheaded. His government didn't give a crap about him. And the US government doesn't give a crap about Americans. But I bet if it was Laura Bush or Tony Blair's kid they would have done something. If you think for a moment that any government puts life ahead of money or power you delude yourself.

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:
Anyway, you missed my point. Do you think the government could get demolitions experts to just blow up a building in this country? Say you could find somebody who was willing to do it. The would need to be someone who hates this country. Those who plan terrorist attacks like that are always bragging about their deeds. So you couldn't find someone who loves this country because they would refuse to do it, and someone who hates the country would spill the beans (bombs unify whereas finding out the government planned attacks on their own country could be much worse). And that's just one person. It would take tons of people coordinating to pull off a job like that and you don't think at least 1 person would run to the media with a least a little bit of proof? You're looking to try and find something that isn't there. Honestly I would believe in aliens or scientology before any of the crackpot conspiracies about 9/11.

Thermite can be made into a paint. Construction workers could have painted the explosives on without even knowing that they were doing so.


Yeah, your government cares about you. Anyone remember that old guy from the UK that pleaded with his government to save his life? He was beheaded. His government didn't give a crap about him. And the US government doesn't give a crap about Americans. But I bet if it was Laura Bush or Tony Blair's kid they would have done something. If you think for a moment that any government puts life ahead of money or power you delude yourself.

This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

AgentSmith88 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:
Anyway, you missed my point. Do you think the government could get demolitions experts to just blow up a building in this country? Say you could find somebody who was willing to do it. The would need to be someone who hates this country. Those who plan terrorist attacks like that are always bragging about their deeds. So you couldn't find someone who loves this country because they would refuse to do it, and someone who hates the country would spill the beans (bombs unify whereas finding out the government planned attacks on their own country could be much worse). And that's just one person. It would take tons of people coordinating to pull off a job like that and you don't think at least 1 person would run to the media with a least a little bit of proof? You're looking to try and find something that isn't there. Honestly I would believe in aliens or scientology before any of the crackpot conspiracies about 9/11.

Thermite can be made into a paint. Construction workers could have painted the explosives on without even knowing that they were doing so.


Yeah, your government cares about you. Anyone remember that old guy from the UK that pleaded with his government to save his life? He was beheaded. His government didn't give a crap about him. And the US government doesn't give a crap about Americans. But I bet if it was Laura Bush or Tony Blair's kid they would have done something. If you think for a moment that any government puts life ahead of money or power you delude yourself.

This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

Because the Anti-Christ told them to. Duh.

AgentSmith88 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:
Anyway, you missed my point. Do you think the government could get demolitions experts to just blow up a building in this country? Say you could find somebody who was willing to do it. The would need to be someone who hates this country. Those who plan terrorist attacks like that are always bragging about their deeds. So you couldn't find someone who loves this country because they would refuse to do it, and someone who hates the country would spill the beans (bombs unify whereas finding out the government planned attacks on their own country could be much worse). And that's just one person. It would take tons of people coordinating to pull off a job like that and you don't think at least 1 person would run to the media with a least a little bit of proof? You're looking to try and find something that isn't there. Honestly I would believe in aliens or scientology before any of the crackpot conspiracies about 9/11.

Thermite can be made into a paint. Construction workers could have painted the explosives on without even knowing that they were doing so.


Yeah, your government cares about you. Anyone remember that old guy from the UK that pleaded with his government to save his life? He was beheaded. His government didn't give a crap about him. And the US government doesn't give a crap about Americans. But I bet if it was Laura Bush or Tony Blair's kid they would have done something. If you think for a moment that any government puts life ahead of money or power you delude yourself.

This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

I can think of two, there may be others.


They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

So they could pass lovely things like the Patriot Act and the precious liberties it strips the American people.

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

I can think of two, there may be others.
They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

This reason actually doesn't make sense, because if the government did it for this reason, then they would have made the "bad guys" Iraqis instead of the multi-national Al-Qaeda-membership that came out as the perpetrators.

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

I can think of two, there may be others.
They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

This reason actually doesn't make sense, because if the government did it for this reason, then they would have made the "bad guys" Iraqis instead of the multi-national Al-Qaeda-membership that came out as the perpetrators.

Well, they made both Al-Qaeda and not necessarily all the Iraqis but definitely Saddam Hussein the "bad guys." That whole "Attack Iraq, WMDs, Al-Qaeda Partly Funded by Hussein" propaganda actually was convincing enough to fulfill whatever goals that were going on at Washington. Jay's reasons does make sense since that propaganda direct towards Iraq would only have been successful in the environment immediately after 9/11.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

I can think of two, there may be others.
They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

This reason actually doesn't make sense, because if the government did it for this reason, then they would have made the "bad guys" Iraqis instead of the multi-national Al-Qaeda-membership that came out as the perpetrators.

Well, they made both Al-Qaeda and not necessarily all the Iraqis but definitely Saddam Hussein the "bad guys." That whole "Attack Iraq, WMDs, Al-Qaeda Partly Funded by Hussein" propaganda actually was convincing enough to fulfill whatever goals that were going on at Washington. Jay's reasons does make sense since that propaganda direct towards Iraq would only have been successful in the environment immediately after 9/11.

Again though, I would point to Occam's Razor. If the government only wanted to move against Iraq, there would be no reason to involve Al Qaeda in the plot at all. They would simply make it an Iraqi terrorist move rather than an Al Qaeda one. Including Al Qaeda only makes it more complicated AND distracts from Iraq unnecessarily.

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

I can think of two, there may be others.
They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

This reason actually doesn't make sense, because if the government did it for this reason, then they would have made the "bad guys" Iraqis instead of the multi-national Al-Qaeda-membership that came out as the perpetrators.

Well, they made both Al-Qaeda and not necessarily all the Iraqis but definitely Saddam Hussein the "bad guys." That whole "Attack Iraq, WMDs, Al-Qaeda Partly Funded by Hussein" propaganda actually was convincing enough to fulfill whatever goals that were going on at Washington. Jay's reasons does make sense since that propaganda direct towards Iraq would only have been successful in the environment immediately after 9/11.

Again though, I would point to Occam's Razor. If the government only wanted to move against Iraq, there would be no reason to involve Al Qaeda in the plot at all. They would simply make it an Iraqi terrorist move rather than an Al Qaeda one. Including Al Qaeda only makes it more complicated AND distracts from Iraq unnecessarily.

Besides, since when does the government need the people's say to do anything? The worst thing we ever do is vote in the other party, who must be in on the conspiracy too if what the troofers say is correct.

And why, exactly, did they need to use all this thermite and shit to bring the building down if that's so suspicious? The heavy majority of the deaths occurred from where the planes hit the tower and the floors above that point; did they go through all the extra risk of the truth coming out just for a pointless exclamation point that served no real purpose?

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

I can think of two, there may be others.
They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

This reason actually doesn't make sense, because if the government did it for this reason, then they would have made the "bad guys" Iraqis instead of the multi-national Al-Qaeda-membership that came out as the perpetrators.

Well, they made both Al-Qaeda and not necessarily all the Iraqis but definitely Saddam Hussein the "bad guys." That whole "Attack Iraq, WMDs, Al-Qaeda Partly Funded by Hussein" propaganda actually was convincing enough to fulfill whatever goals that were going on at Washington. Jay's reasons does make sense since that propaganda direct towards Iraq would only have been successful in the environment immediately after 9/11.

Again though, I would point to Occam's Razor. If the government only wanted to move against Iraq, there would be no reason to involve Al Qaeda in the plot at all. They would simply make it an Iraqi terrorist move rather than an Al Qaeda one. Including Al Qaeda only makes it more complicated AND distracts from Iraq unnecessarily.

No, I disagree because the government didn't want to only move against Iraq. We've known about those camps in Afghanistan for awhile, and we had an itching desire to get rid of them anyway, so why not destroy those bases? It was necessary and unavoidable for us to ignore Al-Qaeda. Going after them and then Iraq kills two birds with one stone, as the saying goes.

Now the government could have alleged that some of the terrorists were trained in Iraq, but such an allegation alone wouldn't have been enough to justify invading that country because there were no Al-Qaeda bases of such size and influence in Iraq compared to Afghanistan's--I'm fairly certain there weren't any Al-Qaeda bases in Iraq at that time. In my opinion, there was so much overwhelming evidence from our own Intelligence Community (IC) as well as other international ICs, that had we claimed that "there are Al-Qaeda bases in Iraq," then that accusation would have been easily countered by a large majority countries that wanted to easily and credibly disprove us (Our word would've gone up against the ICs of our friends, enemies, and mutual acquaintances). So that kind of allegation alone couldn't have worked. The international IC as well as our own knew the bases were in Al-Qaeda and knew the terrorists were trained there, so it would have been ridiculous and unnecessary for us to claim otherwise. Why unnecessary? Because we had "solid enough" propaganda ready to get launched at Iraq.

The distraction of dealing with Al-Qaeda then dealing with Iraq for the American public doesn't really affect them because the American public's attention span for international affairs is comparable to a gnat's. The campaign in Afghanistan was quick, put on the back burner, and then nearly everything was adjusted towards facing Iraq in a very easy and fluid manner. The US mass media quickly tuned in and puked out the Iraq propaganda, while putting out less about AFG. In fact, attacking Al-Qaeda aided the US in drumming up support for invading Iraq. We were already there in the Middle East bombing another country, so the American public was already used to the notion and emotion of us invading a country over there. To invade another might have seemed outrageous but surprisingly the propaganda of "OH MY! Iraq has WMDs and is funding terrorists, and since we're in a war fighting terrorists in AFG as you can plainly see, then we must stop Iraq as well," was convincing enough in such a crazed environment. The American public bought the propaganda so easily because the mood was right, the fear was enough, and so the light glowed green for invading Iraq. Call it "war fever," if you will.

Frigidus wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, they made both Al-Qaeda and not necessarily all the Iraqis but definitely Saddam Hussein the "bad guys." That whole "Attack Iraq, WMDs, Al-Qaeda Partly Funded by Hussein" propaganda actually was convincing enough to fulfill whatever goals that were going on at Washington. Jay's reasons does make sense since that propaganda direct towards Iraq would only have been successful in the environment immediately after 9/11.

Again though, I would point to Occam's Razor. If the government only wanted to move against Iraq, there would be no reason to involve Al Qaeda in the plot at all. They would simply make it an Iraqi terrorist move rather than an Al Qaeda one. Including Al Qaeda only makes it more complicated AND distracts from Iraq unnecessarily.

Besides, since when does the government need the people's say to do anything? The worst thing we ever do is vote in the other party, who must be in on the conspiracy too if what the troofers say is correct.

If that was true, then why would the government even bother trying to convince us of all its propaganda directed at Iraq? If what you claim is true, then they wouldn't need any reasons for invading any country, because as you say the government doesn't need the people's say to do anything. You're completely wrong. The government needs the people's say; it needs their support--or at least enough of it at that time to do what they want.

Hmm, the worst thing, huh? The worst thing that Americans in general do is that they don't pay attention. They don't question their government enough, and they're too gullible. For the American public to be so fervently in favor of the 2003 Iraq War was a pathetic and absolutely retarded moment of American history. One of the worst things an American at that time could have done was support that war, to support that rubbish propaganda, and then criticize anyone that disagreed with it. How foolish of them. How utterly stupid it was...

Anyway, your next paragraph:

And why, exactly, did they need to use all this thermite and shit to bring the building down if that's so suspicious? The heavy majority of the deaths occurred from where the planes hit the tower and the floors above that point; did they go through all the extra risk of the truth coming out just for a pointless exclamation point that served no real purpose?

Ohh, for this, well, don't look at me. I'm not at all convinced about the thermite and aided demolition hypotheses, and judging from earlier posts Jay's not going to bother trying to convince us.

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can. Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information. (The towers had financial info, the Pentagon obvioulsly military). I thought the point of wanting to be part of the government was helping control the direction of the country. What point does killing citizens they are supposed represent serve?

AgentSmith88 wrote:It would take tons of people coordinating to pull off a job like that and you don't think at least 1 person would run to the media with a least a little bit of proof? You're looking to try and find something that isn't there. Honestly I would believe in aliens or scientology before any of the crackpot conspiracies about 9/11.

Operation North Woods. No one knew about it until it was accidentally declassified. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study,... everyone knew about it. The health Care crisis on Indian reservations (AND WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS).
Plus am I the only one who remembers the media fervor over the declassified documents that proved that the CIA was experimenting on the American public with LSD without their knowledge? People died and they covered it up. Again, another classification blunder brought this to light. People though that their dad had a heart attack 20 years ago only to find out that they had slipped some psychotropic drugs in his morning coffee....
On a some-what related note, Al Capone bought Chicago. Then Watergate happened. Then 50 police officers were arrested in Denver for being part of a massive burglary ring. And today I live in Illinois, a state known for corruption being intertwined in politics. I'm just saying that this isn't sci-fi. This stuff happens all the time.
Anyone who thinks that our government would not EVER kill it's citizens and lie about it is not educating themselves on the topic. Information exists, and is widely published.

AgentSmith88 wrote:This isn't a movie or video game. People don't go killing willy nilly because they can.

Well, we did invade Iraq AND Afghanistan all for 1 guy...

AgentSmith88 wrote:Please explain your theory on why the US government would want to blow up their own buildings that hold vital information.

Tower 7 had the only vital information in it. You see, the Pentagon was undergoing some remodeling on the side that was struck by the plan. All filing cabinets ect. were moved. The remodeling was for a "what-if a plan is hijacked and smashes into the pentagon" scenario. No joke. The funniest part though, is that all the surveillance camera's were still running, but the footage has never been released. Even the footage from local hotels and gas stations had been confiscated immediately. I think a total of 3 or 7 frames or some junk was released. Basically, a fireball.
Tower 7 had tons of tax filings/investigation information in it. The coolest and most important probably being the IRS's only copies of it's ENRON paper trail investigation. There was more but it's been a long-ass times since I've read-up on it.

jay_a2j wrote:
They needed a pretext to get troops in the middle east. (and take out Saddam for whatever reason, oil, revenge for papa Bush, etc.)

Take it as hear-say, and I know that I have mentioned this before. But I worked with an elderly lady who's son was in Afghanistan laying fiber optics before 9-11. He came home for a short while, then went to Iraq to do the same. And again, that was before the propaganda kicked in. He was in the Marines, and then went to a private contractor.

Frigidus wrote:The worst thing we ever do is vote in the other party, who must be in on the conspiracy too if what the troofers say is correct.

There is no concise agreement from the "troofers." It's like saying that Atheist have a central dogma. Oh, except none of them believe in "pods attached to the plans." That guy who originally said it, as it turns out, was paid to say it by a pentagon funded PR group. Awesome!

I think the majority of them believe that there was collusion across a broad range of "elite," but no central group. And I am not implying that it was a large group at all.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ohh, for this, well, don't look at me. I'm not at all convinced about the thermite and aided demolition hypotheses, and judging from earlier posts Jay's not going to bother trying to convince us.

What about the people who were inside the buildings that day who said their were bombs? What about Manny Ramirez? Because of the witnesses It was widely reported that day that there were bombs, but later they stopped saying that and covering that aspect.

I think that the biggest boost to any other explanation is that NIST failed to prove that the buildings came down from a fire. They manipulated the data (including adding extra jet fuel, knocking away support columns and removing the buildings fire shielding) and even then their own models failed to collapse. And they refuse to examine what happened to the buildings after they started to collapse. They never investigated any claims of bombs, and threw out a lot of witness testimony (including first responders). So to recapp:
1) NIST manipulated the data to make the buildings collapse and then claimed that is how it happened
2) NIST didn't investigate anything after the initial collapse began
3) Their own models wont collapse even after the data manipulation
4) They made it all up

The truth is that NIST, the commission, and their conclusions actually hurt the 9-11 investigation. It's fine to say that you don't believe that bombs brought the towers down. I don't have anything personally invested in this. But the evidence that the plans brought the towers down is at least, in part, completely made-up. I discussed this in that thread I linked. And I am talking about all three towers that fell that day here.