Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2566    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:51 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 25 June 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

I am still waiting for a 9-11 troother nutter to tell me why the government/Haliburton/The Illuminati/the CIA/Mossad/whoever would want to to simulate an additional Jihadist terrorist attack in addition to the thousands that have occurred already?

I guesss no answer will ever be forthcoming.

Notwithstanding your “troother nutter” flame (I hazard a guess, for your lack of better argument), the question is very easily answered by anyone who has researched the topic.  There were individuals within government (and yes, Cheney was also a chairman of Haliburton, though I’m most reluctant to include the ‘Illuminati’ haha) who stated the effect and benefit to the U.S. that, “a new Pearl Harbor” event would bring.  It appears that none of the previous ‘thousands’ of attacks were to the likeness of Pearl Harbor that would incite the American people or timing required and so it was found necessary to induce 9/11, granted credibility with no small assistance of the Jihadist threat which already existed.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2567    Ove

Ove

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:14 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 June 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

View PostOve, on 25 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 June 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

View PostOve, on 25 June 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

This video is more than enough evidence, it was controlled demolition.
I think not, considering that no bomb explosions were seen nor heard or detected by seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that  NO evidence of explosves was found at ground zero, which  proves beyond any doubt that no explosives were used.
Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.
But, real demolition experts have denied that explosives were used! In addition, I have spent a lot of time in Vietnam to know what real bomb explosions sound and look like and I saw no evidence of bomb explosions in those 911 videos.

Since  you want to take the word of real experts, let's take a look here because it is apparent that you have missed the following information before.

"WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse."


lead investigator Shyam Sunder is debunked at 04:39 in the video

Edited by Ove, 26 June 2013 - 04:17 PM.


#2568    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:56 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

the question is very easily answered by anyone who has researched the topic.

Oh, is it? Then try, please.

View PostQ24, on 26 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

There were individuals within government (and yes, Cheney was also a chairman of Haliburton, though I’m most reluctant to include the ‘Illuminati’ haha) who stated the effect and benefit to the U.S. that, “a new Pearl Harbor” event would bring.

Irrelevant, and speculation.

View PostQ24, on 26 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

It appears that none of the previous ‘thousands’ of attacks were to the likeness of Pearl Harbor that would incite the American people or timing required and so it was found necessary to induce 9/11, granted credibility with no small assistance of the Jihadist threat which already existed.

Oh does it "appear" now, really? Well, how is the 9/11 jihadist attack different from, say, the attack on the Beirut Barracks, on the USS Cole, and on the US embassies in Daressalam and Nairobi? Or, for that matter, the jihadist terrorist attack on the WTC in New York in 1993? They were all spectacular, large, and directly against the state in case of embassy bombings. Yes, 9-11 had pretty spectacular results, but the the attack itself (with a bunch of box cutters) was pretty pedestrian.

So no, there is NOTHING qualitatively different here. Jihadist attacks were on-going and are on going.

If this is what you call "research", you just embarrassed yourself. FAIL!

So again: Why would anyone concoct a gigantic conspiracy, just to add another jihadist attack in the middle of thousands of jihadist attacks?

It seems to me the troothers have no answer.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#2569    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 26 June 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Irrelevant, and speculation.

In your opinion, somehow, sure.  But there are many who find it quite relevant that individuals within government stated the effect and benefit “a new Pearl Harbor” would bring to the United States.  It is not speculation that the requirement was pre-stated: -

"Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after.""
Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Imagining the Transforming Event - 1998

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
~Rebuilding America's Defenses, Neocon roadmap - 2000


View PostZaphod222, on 26 June 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Well, how is the 9/11 jihadist attack different from, say, the attack on the Beirut Barracks, on the USS Cole, and on the US embassies in Daressalam and Nairobi? Or, for that matter, the jihadist terrorist attack on the WTC in New York in 1993?

We had this 'discussion' briefly before, here.  It seems that you ignored my answer or that it was above your understanding.  Personally I think it’s a silly question which indicates you have not researched the facts and figures of those attacks and/or put any thought into it.  I’ll request the same as I did then in the hope you might be sensible and take the advice onboard this time...

First, please consider the scale of destruction, loss of life and location of each incident.  That will answer your question as to how 9/11 differed from those other attacks.  What you will find is that none, bar 9/11, are anywhere near a match to Pearl Harbor in consideration of these factors.  Even Bush drew the comparison:  “That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor.”

Second, attacks like at the Beirut Barracks, WTC '93 and U.S. Embassies all pre-dated discussion of how a new Pearl Harbor-like attack would effect and benefit the United States and the coming to power of the Neocon politicians who stated it and therefore can be discounted even inspite of their differences to 9/11.  As I said in my previous post, the timing had to be right for those politicians to act upon the pretext.


View PostZaphod222, on 26 June 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

It seems to me the troothers have no answer.

It seems to me you don’t have much of a question in the first place, are more interested in flaming “troothers” and don’t think much or consider answers provided, which makes you irrelevant so far as any rationale debate is concerned.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2570    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,936 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:29 PM

People ready to take advantage of an event like Pearl Harbor isn't a secret, isn't evidence of a conspiracy, has nothing to do with believing in bombs in buildings.  They flat out wrote it for all to see.  It's right in front of our noses, it's not buried under fabulous secrets made up by imaginations.  The US always takes advantage of the opportunity that violence creates in the world.   Welcome to stating the obvious.  This isn't a conspiracy it's another day in the office.  There's hardly a major act of violence in the Middle East that goes by without the US sticking its nose in it.   Why?   Do we love violence for the sake of violence?   Of course not, we have interests that are met by sticking our noses in other peoples' business.

Truthers are dupes of Zion.  Obviously if you can't even intellectually handle the fact that terrorists attacked us on 9/11, by logical extension, you can't deal with the motivation of those terrorists to attack us.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#2571    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:48 PM

View PostOve, on 26 June 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

lead investigator Shyam Sunder is debunked at 04:39 in the video

The video mentioned 1500 people calling for a new investigation, yet they are out numbered by 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report and 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2572    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:17 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 June 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

In your opinion, somehow, sure.  But there are many who find it quite relevant that individuals within government stated the effect and benefit “a new Pearl Harbor” would bring to the United States.  It is not speculation that the requirement was pre-stated: -

"Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after.""
Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Imagining the Transforming Event - 1998

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
~Rebuilding America's Defenses, Neocon roadmap - 2000

I have a problem with claims that 911 was a new Pearl Harbor to rebuild America's Defenses, especially as I watched cuts in goods and services since the 911 attack. Just the other day, the Air Force announced that another squadron is to be deactivated when 14 other squadrons have been cut with 3 more squadrons on the chopping block and more cuts are on the way.

Quote


Federal budget cuts ground Air Force aircraft

Budget cuts ground 3rd of Air Force warplanes; those headed to Afghanistan to be mission ready

Reduced Flying Hours Forces USAF To Ground 17 Combat Air Squadrons

The U.S. Air Force will begin grounding combat air squadrons Tuesday in response to forced spending cuts that have eliminated more than 44,000 flying hours through September, according to internal documents obtained by Defense News.

The Air Force’s budget for flying hours was reduced by $591 million for the remainder of fiscal 2013, making it impossible to keep all squadrons ready for combat, according to an April 5 memo signed by Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, director of operations for Air Combat Command. The across-the board spending cuts, called sequestration, took effect March 1 when Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan.

Seventeen combat-coded squadrons will stand down effective Tuesday or upon their return from deployments, according to the documents. The Air Force will distribute 241,496 flying hours that are funded to squadrons that will be kept combat ready or at a reduced readiness level called “basic mission capable” for part or all of the remaining months in fiscal 2013, the documents said.

http://www.defensene...t-Air-Squadrons

US Army Announces Brigade Cuts, Restructuring

The US Army will cut 10 brigade combat teams over the next four years, bringing the number of active-duty BCTs to 33, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said Tuesday.

http://www.defensene...s-Restructuring

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) -- A top general says federal budget cuts that will ground one-third of the U.S. Air Force's active-duty force of combat planes including fighters and bombers means "accepting the risk that combat airpower may not be ready to respond immediately to new contingencies as they occur."Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia, issued the warning Tuesday as the Pentagon braces for more effects of the automatic spending cuts triggered by the lack of a budget agreement in Washington.

Hostage said that only the units preparing to deploy to major operations, such as the war in Afghanistan, will remain mission-ready. Other units would stand down on a rotating basis, he added.
The Air Force didn't immediately release a list of the specific units and bases that would be affected, but it said it would cover some fighters like F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-22 Raptors, and some airborne warning and control aircraft in the U.S., Europe and the Pacific.

The Air Force says, on average, aircrews "lose currency" to fly combat commissions within 90 to 120 days of not flying. It generally takes 60 to 90 days to train the crews to mission-ready status.
Returning grounded units to be ready for missions will require additional funds beyond Air Combat Command's normal budget, according to Air Force officials. The "stand down" will remain in effect for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 barring any changes to funding.

"Even a six-month stand down of units will have significant long-term, multi-year impacts on our operational readiness," Air Combat Command spokesman Maj. Brandon Lingle wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

http://news.yahoo.co...-113356244.html


Budget cuts force Air Force, Navy to ground aircraft

More than a dozen Air Force fighter squadrons were grounded Tuesday at U.S. bases around the world, including some in Europe and the Pacific, as the cash-strapped service confronts the effects of steep defense budget cuts brought on by sequestration.

About one-third of active-duty Combat Air Force warplanes were to be grounded in connection with the elimination of about 45,000 flying hours by Oct. 1, according to a news release from Air Combat Command. The Air Force’s budget for flying hours was reduced by $591 million for the remainder of fiscal 2013, which makes it impossible to keep all squadrons ready for combat, Defense News reported.

Among the Air Force units grounded Tuesday were two F-15 fighter squadrons from the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, F-16s from the 555th Fighter Squadron, according to Defense News. The 81st Fighter Squadron, which flies A-10s, is inactivating in May.

http://www.stripes.c...rcraft-1.215708


Edited by skyeagle409, 26 June 2013 - 07:41 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2573    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:30 PM

View PostYamato, on 26 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

People ready to take advantage of an event like Pearl Harbor isn't a secret, isn't evidence of a conspiracy, has nothing to do with believing in bombs in buildings.

DITTO!!! :tu:

911 conspiracist speak of a new Pearl Harbor in regards to the 911 attack and the rebuilding of America's Defenses, but I see no connection whatsoever. Many Air Force squadrons that have not been cut today, are already broke, including my former unit.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2574    Ove

Ove

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:31 PM

They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

The owner Larry Silverstein said so, you know it and everybody knows it.


#2575    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:32 PM

View PostOve, on 26 June 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

The owner Larry Silverstein said so, you know it and everybody knows it.

Once again, the term: "Pull It" meant that buildings are pulled down my cables, not by explosives. Once again, you have shown just how easy you are duped. Mr. Silverstein was talking about pulling people out of WTC7, not demolishing WTC7.



Edited by skyeagle409, 26 June 2013 - 07:36 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2576    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,998 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:46 PM

Yamato

If you are not perceptive enough to realize that you were traumatized and duped on 11 September, well..... :cry:


#2577    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 June 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Yamato

If you are not perceptive enough to realize that you were traumatized and duped on 11 September, well..... :cry:

You are the person who has been duped!!

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2578    Ove

Ove

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:04 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 June 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

View PostOve, on 26 June 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

The owner Larry Silverstein said so, you know it and everybody knows it.
Once again, the term: "Pull It" meant that buildings are pulled down my cables, not by explosives. Once again, you have shown just how easy you are duped. Mr. Silverstein was talking about pulling people out of WTC7, not demolishing WTC7.
They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

Larry Silverstein "I said, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse"

"pull" led to  the building collapse


#2579    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:39 AM

View PostOve, on 26 June 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

Seems you didn't bother to review the video. The video made it very clear that Mr. Silverstein referred to the pulling out of people inside WTC7, not demolishing the building.

Quote

Larry Silverstein "I said, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse"

Let's take another look.

Quote


Silverstein's Quote:


"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


*   Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

*   Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

   "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."



"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone.

We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.

They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down."


- Richard Banaciski



In other words, "pull it" meant the pulling out of people, and nothing to do with the demolition implosion process, which was obvious because there was no sound of bomb explosions as WTC7 collapsed..

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 June 2013 - 12:53 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2580    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 2,858 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:42 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 June 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

The video mentioned 1500 people calling for a new investigation, yet they are out numbered by 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report and 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

This is an interesting set of numbers, and leads to some obvious conclusions..

According to that, somewhere between 1 in 50 and 1 in 80 people calling themselves 'professional', are in fact deluded, untalented, vociferous loudmouthed conspiracists who, when confronted with facts, deflect/avoid/run away and claim victory (or in this case call for more investigations 'coz they don't like/understand the ones they got...).


Funnily enough, my experience is that the ratio is far worse than that - I think it's about 1 in 20...  And even if it was two or three times worse, the majority still easily rules.  Rightly, and as is currently the case.

I'll pop back in a year's time though, as promised, to see what great strides toward "The Truth" have been achieved..

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users