The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

mjd1982 said:
As im about to head out, read this article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

This should help you.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really seem to address the issue of how getting hold of Bin Laden, or bringing him to trial, would help to prevent the 9/11 attacks from occurring, unless he had some reason to say something about future attacks. But the US didn't want him to find out about stuff in the future, they wanted him to put on trial for the Cole attacks, primarily. Similarly, we don't want OBL now to prevent future attacks, we want to put him on trial for his role in 9/11... and the USS Cole attacks... and possibly his role in the 1993 WTC bombing.

I mean, it's not like Jack Bauer is going to force him to tell us about the plan 2 hours before it happens. When the US looks for terror suspects, they're mostly looking for people after the fact to put on trial.

In fact, terrorism is such a threat precisely because it is so disorganized. This is what made the IRA such a pain in the ass for the British. Even if they'd taken down the head of the IRA at any given time, it wouldn't stop the cells from carrying out their individual missions. They didn't even have enough central contact for the leader to really harm them much if caught.

The Al Qaeda group appears to be organized along similar lines, albeit with a slightly different focus. Capturing or killing OBL well in advance of 9/11 would certainly have hurt funding and organization somewhat, but I don't know if we can really argue that that action alone would destroy their ability to conduct operations, especially so close to the 9/11 attacks.
 
lapman said:
Where is the proof that Kabir was on the US payroll? Sounds more like somebody trying to use 9/11 to get famous to me.
Click to expand...
I don't think it makes any difference. The Frankfort "deal" was with Clinton and he found no reason to act on it either. I have seen no proof anywhere that leads to the Talibans' ability to make good on the deal. Lots of "they saids" but no proof.
 
mjd1982 said:
You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.
Click to expand...

We know that they failed, at least in this case, but you have only claimed that they did not try. It's entirely possible that there were previous attempts at an attack which were thwarted. (A la - Britian-based Liquid Explosives plot)

mjd1982 said:
The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US
Click to expand...

So the govt had the current/correct names and locations of each person involved 9/11? And knew that they were all planning said attack? And deliberately did nothing?


mjd1982 said:
theyre not US citizens
Click to expand...

Your argument says to wiretap, etc the people who are believed to be AQ operatives. However, there could easily be many people who may be "believed to be AQ operatives" who are not.
 
Last edited:
MIKILLINI said:
They made a movie about it, the title is "The Devil Wears Pravda". :D
Click to expand...
Unsecured Coins said:
Welcome to my world of frustration when it comes to mjd's posts. I told you he had a habit of posting links that don't have anything to do with his argument.
But y'all didn't want to believe me. A Pox on you ALL.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D

mjd1982 said:
If you are bursting, you can read them at SLC.

By the time I am finished with this section, the honest people on the thread will no longer need convincing.
Click to expand...

But mjd1982, you raised this issue in your OP; it's also included in the 'tags' for this post. Please address them:

mjd1982 said:
Hello all!
(snip)

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

WTC7

(snip)

WTC 7 was a 47 storey building, 100m north of the North Tower that housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Mayor’s Emergency Management Office, the IRS, and the SEC, among others. At 5.20 pm on 9/11, it was taken down in a manner that raised eyebrows. In the words of top Dutch implosion expert Danny Jowenko: “This is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a hired job done by a team of experts.” Or to quote emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Hugo Bachmann: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". Also, emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Joerg Schneider: "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of 1st responders both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:
(Google video- WTC7- The smoking gun of 9/11)

I am aware that there is testimony regarding suspicions that the building was at risk, and this is not testimony I deny; I have no doubt that those firefighters thought the building would collapse. Nonetheless, nor do I deny the testimony provided in the above video, and anyone who will accept only one will have to justify why they deny the other.

(snip)

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.

(snip)
M
Click to expand...

In your video there are first-responders who state that the building was 'gonna blow up', or 'explode', which you seem to consider to be a smoking gun; yet another firefighter states that his radio 'exploded' which you dismiss as a colloquialism.

How can you judge the difference?
 
mjd1982 said:
1. No.

I guess this invalidates all the rest?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... so are you saying 'No' to 9/11 being organised by the US Government,

or

'No - There WERE terrorists involved'?

The latter would suggest that you believe the US Government KNEW a terrorist attack was imminent, but let it happen for their own supposed gain?
At the time of - or prior to - the PNAC, the Government were aware that an attack of catastrophic magnitude was going to be made, so they indirectly alluded to it in the PNAC, then sat back and allowed it to occur - is that what you are driving at?
 
I just had to post to say that Satansmalevoicechoir is one of the most unique names I have seen here...caught my eye, so I had to post.

TAM:)
 
I tried google; is this you guys?

1228405L.jpg
 
HeyLeroy said:
In your video there are first-responders who state that the building was 'gonna blow up', or 'explode', which you seem to consider to be a smoking gun; yet another firefighter states that his radio 'exploded' which you dismiss as a colloquialism.

How can you judge the difference?
Click to expand...

Obviously......the demo charges were all disguised as radios.:cool:
 
nicepants said:
Obviously......the demo charges were all disguised as radios.:cool:
Click to expand...

Funny, that. I suggested to mjd1982 the same thing; he could argue that as a way for the explosives to be smuggled into the burning building. He dismissed that.

I guess my troofer hat was a wrong fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom