9/11 was...

[Tiggeroshii]

[Moochy]

1. 0.818181818

[Tiggeroshii]

2. ?

[Moochy]

4. sorry was being silly.. I voted though :)

9/11=0.818181818

[dweller]

5. hahahahah!

dp

[samsingh]

3. inside job to a degree

[GOPS Worst Fear]

7. All Things Lead To The Bush Administration

If you look at the PNAC Document and the Downing Street memos, you know that Bush planned on going into Iraq long before he was even Selected by the Suprem Court. Then the Repukes got the Pearl Harbor Type of attack on U.S. soil they felt they needed to justify going into Iraq and the Middle East. Look at the 9-11 film of Bush just sitting in that class and not moving a muscle..like he knew what was happening.
Then too, Bush father George Sr. Having Breakfast that morning with Bin Laden's brother..

...if you add it all up, how can anyone come to any other conclusion?

[Zynx]

8. If they're such master conspirators, surely they could have come up

with a document to link Saddam to 9/11. If they can pull of these elaborate feats, surely a little forgery would be nothing. I think you all give them way too much credit.

[CJCRANE]

10. They didn't need to.

All they needed was a "new Pearl Harbor" done by arabs. Then they blamed it on Iraq anyway and it worked.

[reorg]

15. who needs documents?

They also didn't produce a "document" that conclusively proves a connection between the 9/11 attacks and ben Laden.

As to the Saddam 9/11 link:

Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 0625 GMT (1425 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework." (...)

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

And

... These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,012 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive between February 8 and 13, 2005.

* 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November). ...

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544

[file83]

31. They did try to do that shit - and it worked. But when they were caught

everyone just said "nothing to see here...move along".

It's called "Plamegate". Remember Joseph Wilson refuted Bush's SOTU speech claims that Iraq/Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger back in 2003? So as retaliation, the Bush Admin outed Joseph Wilson's wife (aka Valerie Plame) as a undercover CIA operative whose mission it was to investigate nuclear weapons proliferation. It was a shot across the bow, a warning, to all other people that were thinking about exposing the Bush Administration.

No one got busted (except for Scooter Libby for lieing under oath). Bush is free and still taking away our freedoms.

So there is your answer. That's just one example - there are many more.

[Vidar]

6. Either LIHOP or MIHOP.

[CJCRANE]

9. Other.

It's more complicated than any of those three options.

[Tiggeroshii]

11. You guys need to keep in mind that the US military considered bombing

itself for support of military action back int he sixties in Operation Northwoods. Here's the actual document in .pdf:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

[CJCRANE]

12. Also bear in mind

Rummy's leaked notes from 9/11 that he considered bombing "SH" (Saddam Hussein) straightaway (without any evidence) and "things related and not". Other leaks indicate that Rummy also preferred to attack Iraq because there were no major infrastructure targets in Afghanistan.

This proves the claim wrong (earlier in thread) that 9/11 needed to be carried out by Iraqis to justify an invasion.

[greyl]

13. That's irrelevant to the events of 9/11.

I doubt many people would vote differently based on knowledge of Northwoods. It's totally irrelevant.

[Nozebro]

16. The Northwoods Plan is VERY relevant to understanding 9/11.

I'm sure that most, if not all SINCERE and OBJECTIVE people who know much about the Northwoods Plan and who also know much about the 9/11 attacks (other than the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale) can readily
understand and appreciate the relevance of knowing that 9/11 isn't the first time that the U.S. Gov't has contemplated a DOMESTIC False Flag operation.

[greyl]

17. No, it's totally irrelevant.

CTists try to make it relevant because they have zero evidence to bring a solid case.

The reason why your arguments aren't convincing isn't that OCTists can't fathom that a government could perpetrate a false-flag operation, it's because the arguments and evidence for your 9/11 CTs are so weak.

[Nozebro]

18. I wish I could get paid for every opinion I post. Now, back to your

rant and OCT claim: that's quite a piece of convoluted "reasoning". May I ask how old you are?

[greyl]

19. At least then they'd be worth something, eh? nt

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

22. Seems like a perfectly valid line of reasoning to me

If something is irrelevant to the claims being made then why ever bother considering it?

Of course governments contemplate, and sometimes carry out, false flag operations all the time. All that means is that sometimes there are false flag operations. It does nothing toward providing evidence that the 9-11 attacks were a false flag operation.

Another example...
salvorhardin likes to eat ice cream.

That's a true statement. However it tells us nothing about whether or not salvorhardin ate ice cream today. Neither does it tell us whether or not salvorhardin even intends to eat ice cream today.

Could salvorhardin be eating ice cream today? Sure he could... if he has the money to buy ice cream today, or the necessary ingredients at home to make ice cream, and if he thinks he might want some ice cream today. But the fact that salvorhardin likes to eat ice cream just has no predictive power.

Similarly, the fact that the U.S. Government has planned false flag operations in the past has no predictive power.

If you think that 9-11 was a false flag operation, then you must prove it with evidence. And of that the 9-11 Truth movement is sorely lacking.

Sorry, I forgot... the lack of evidence is PROOF!!!111 of the conspiracy.


Oh, and I should mention that greyl's age has no predictive power regarding false flag operations or 9-11 either. Just thought I'd help you out on that one.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

20. i doubt anyone is trying to convince you

..speaking of irrelevant

[Tiggeroshii]

23. There isn't a whole lot of evidence.

But we know that the US has done possibly far worse. Think about this: On Tuesday, September 11, 1973, President Nixon ordered our CIA to intervene in a coupe which brought death to Salvador Allende and many of his supporters. We know that President Reagan, and Oliver North conspired with Ayatolla Khomeini to release the Iran hostages at the US embassy shortly before election.

It is clear that the US military had considered far worse proposals than Operation Northwoods, and speculation to the birht of a 9/11 conspiracy start in the Kennedy Administration where the Joint Chiefs of Staff were fired after proposing Operation Northwoods. Shortly after that, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Recent evidence suggest strong involvement by agenciess of the US government in Kennedy's assassination.

One of Kennedy's doodles that are preserved in the JFK library have a circle, in the middle there is written, "911" and to the lower left hand corner of the page, there is written "Conspiracy," underlined.

Obviously a lot of speculation, but the coincidences are too many to not be skeptical of the official reports.

[FoxOnTheRun]

26. I bet you haven't read it

[LARED]

25. I'm really sick of the CT'ers attitude that they

are on higher ground when it comes to being sincere and objective.

[Nozebro]

29. The truth does hurt and apparently it can make some people "sick".

Take two aspirin and get some sleep. Let the late-night shift take over for you.

[LARED]

32. The truth is many CT'ers have little to base their beliefs on

and can only defend those belief by implying the so called OCT'er are shills and dis-info agents.

In short anyone that challenges your faith based belief system is a heretic. So instead of using reason to defend yourself you resort to dogma.

[CJCRANE]

14. 9/11 was...the big one

the "cataclysmic event" the neocons needed so that they no longer had to "swat at flies" but could go and kick up the hornets' nest.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. The most prominent people speaking of 911as a conpsiracy are former

high ranking Bush and Reagan officials.

[LiberalUprising]

27. Right you are

The reason so many moderates can't buy the CTs is because to believe the CT would mean that some if not all the dems would be complicit, maybe or maybe not in the planning but at least in the cover up.

As we all know dems would NEVER do anything like that.

Same reaction and reasoning you get from the bush fanatics.

What's strange to me is why so many anti CTers hang out in the all but unfindable 911 forum trying to convince everyone that it was Osoma or some other far fetched tale that is to blame. Why are they so concerned what the "wackos' are thinking if we are in a minority and not revelent.

The more progressive people have moved on to places where such talk of 'CTs' is welcomed as it once was here.

[number6]

28. done by BFEE, ISI and MIC

:nuke:

[file83]

30. Who is Osama "Bhin" Laden? Don't you mean "bin"?

Fixed Poll!!! :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

33. All Three

That's the problem with your poll. It requires us to make choices that are not necessarily valid or relevant. My own personal view is that 9/11 was the work of Osama bin Laden, facilitated and financed by the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence agency, which given its record in India, Afghanistant and elsewhere is indeed another terrorist organization, and facilitated or permitted by elements within the US government.

It's not either or.

I just think we have a very naive sense of how international intelligence and defense organizations work. There is no "red team" versus the "blue team".

There are individuals and networks within all the official organizations that sometimes carry out their larger organizations aims and sometimes have their own agendas.

If you want to know how international intelligence works, just think about your own job. Ever work for a corporation? Did it have a "mission statement" or overall goal?

Now think about day to day office politics. Were you and everyone else always working single mindedly to advance the interests of your company? Was each person always working to obey and advance the interest of his or her superior?

Why do you think the world of intelligence and terrorism are so different from every other field of endeavor?