I know many of you beleive 9/11 was a conspiriacy. I also know many of you have theorys on how the towers callopsed. Where as I don't have a theory as to why the twin towers callopsed in the manner in which they did, I do have a theory on the cause of 9/11 itself. Here is a breif time line of the States major wars in the last 100 years, which I have analysed and put togethor my theory upon:

USA joins WW1: 1917.

USA joins WW2: 1941.

USA enters Vietnam war: 1969.

USA forces first enter Gulf War: 1990.

USA enters Afghanistan in 9/11 aftermath:2002/3.

USA invades Iraq: 2003.

If you observe these dates carefully you'll notice one thing; The US always entered a war within fifteen years of the last one it was involved with. This is how Americas economey works. Although lots of money is spent, resources which are not as sought after as the revenue of war and spent. The war is profitable to America. This sounds horrid, and I'm not saying that the USA cares more about natrual resources than its people; what I am saying is that areas of its goverment need these resources and do not care how many troops have to die to get it.

I have established that America needs to go to war once evrey fifteen to twentey years or so in order to sustain its economey. I beleive that September 11'th, 2001, and the events that came to pass on that day had been extensivley planned perhaps years in advance, in order to obtain resources from countrys that possess them in plenty. The September 11th atrocitys opened the window for invasions of middle-eastern countrys, which is what America needed to sustain its growing economey. My most profound beleif on this is that George W. Bush was NOT involved; In fact, it is my guess that he beleives the attacks were shaped by terrorists much like evreyone else.

My only explanation for the way the towers callopsed is that the supports were rigged with explosives.

Any thoughts on this?


PS: Does anyone know how I could get in contact with Mr. Walter or one of his associates, via email, ect?

Walken: I sat on my sofa and watched the 9/11 incident every waking moment. You may have been in school at the time but it was reported by the architects that were a part of the twin towers that the weight of the upper floors fell while on fire and it caused a chain reaction of the upper floor falling on the one below it and then those two falling on the one below it, and then those three falling and then it just snowballed down to the ground.

I like your date theory but do you also notice that when we go to war these days it is because we are going to work on behalf of oppressed people more then we are for ourself. We spend our money to help peoples in other nations.

The Gulf War and the Iraqi war cannot really be included in your totals since they were for different purposes. Sure, we may have kept a lot of the economy running smoother too, but at the same time we spent billions of dollars that will not be recoverable for a very long time. That's not good economics.

Also remember, our president does not go to war with anyone until he has long talks with the military accordingly. Don't you think they might be the bigger influence as to whether we go to war or not and not the economic leaders.

I sat on my sofa and watched the 9/11 incident every waking moment.

So did I.

You may have been in school at the time but it was reported by the architects that were a part of the twin towers that the weight of the upper floors fell while on fire and it caused a chain reaction of the upper floor falling on the one below it and then those two falling on the one below it, and then those three falling and then it just snowballed down to the ground.

Actually, that's olny partially true. Firefighters reported loud explosions going of finside the tower before it collapsed. What you are talking about is known propoganda. Most architects don't believe any fire would be hot enough to melt the steel, regardless of the jet fuel involved. If you would like, I can email you the information. Also, I have a video of charges being set off in WTC7.

I like your date theory but do you also notice that when we go to war these days it is because we are going to work on behalf of oppressed people more then we are for ourself. We spend our money to help peoples in other nations.

Or so it appears. Remeber, evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

The Gulf War and the Iraqi war cannot really be included in your totals since they were for different purposes. Sure, we may have kept a lot of the economy running smoother too, but at the same time we spent billions of dollars that will not be recoverable for a very long time. That's not good economics.

What do you know of economics? Do you know where the money is going right now? Do you know what the CIA is doing with money? Do you know who funds AL-Queda? I can give you the information of you like. Follow the money trail, and many things will be revaled to you. I reccommend getting your hands on every comprehensive finacial world repost you possibly can.

Also remember, our president does not go to war with anyone until he has long talks with the military accordingly.

It's true. But who determines the attitudes of the Military? Who funds and controls it? Follow the money and the institutions.


Don't you think they might be the bigger influence as to whether we go to war or not and not the economic leaders.

Not when they are the one and the same. Econimics and Military go together like butter and toast. Good questions though. One's that need to be asked.

Do i detect a hint of bitter-ness in the line 'You may have been in school at the time'? Or is it just me?

Ironiccly, I was in school at the time, however when I found out what happened (about just before our lunch break UK time) i left and got home to watch the events unfold.

It's true your wars are fought to save oppresed people, but who decides whos oppressed? Dozens of developing middle-eastern countrys are at the hands of fascist dictators. Whats so special about Iraq? Could it be the ever increasing profits in black gold?

You also highlight the money SPENT on war, but fail to notice the (i think this is a prettey mean term but...) profits of war. Plus, think of all the hidden reserach that may be being done out there, all in the name of Liberation. Sure, maybe I'm paranoid, maybe it is just a sweet country liberateing the less fortunate, but that's less probable than my theory.

Finally, I may be wrong but you seem to be paying more attention to the final sentance in my document, one relativly insignificant. Is this your defence mechanisim to hide from the bigger truth? I may be wrong but....

Finally, considor this.

The USA is run by the goverment. The goverment is headed by the president. Who looks after the president. If you find an awnser to that, who controls them?

The syndicates in charge, and they're evreywhere.

To quote from star trek (shut up in the back i CAN hear you laughing), this two quotes, ring true with Gulf War 2 (the empire strikes back):



So true, arming both enemies, is a big boost for the arms market. (who armed both the iranian and the iraqis at the same time? The US of A). War in iraq, gives rise to the next:



How many billions of dollars will US companies get from re-construction, oil, and trade?

These two also has some sort of relevence to Americas current progress:

and the best one

Man... The sentence, ok, I remember those too, and I've only heard them once... but if you remember the exact rule number...

Let me see if I get you right:

1) The impact and jet fuel from the jets were not in any way sufficient to cause the collapse events by themselves.
2)There were explosive "charges" placed in the towers to assist it's destruction during the jet attacks.
3)The CIA funds al-Queda

How am I doing with the summary?

If the USA disaggres with 9/11 so much, why don't they stop selling weapons to AQ???

BEcause they need terrorisim.

hahaha well said and totally true.

Its not just the US though, its most other countries too.

For example, the Germany goverment used the Pro-Nai group to create terroism in Berlin to give the goverment an excuse to make Germany a police state, which it is today

Knowing the game is one thing people must know becuase when you know the way they play the game, they cant do sh**

Yes umm, show me some actual proof that the US is still selling weapons to Al Qaida please...

Show me some proof that they aren't.

Show me some proof that all biological agents in Iraq wern't put there by America.

Show me some proof that the palistinen and israli war isn't being funded and played by America to keep Western influence in middle-eastern countrys up.

It's all MEDC's that do this. They play the LEDC's for their own profit. Whoever loses the middle-eastern wars, MEDC's always win.

They are the ones who play the game, the controll it, they own it.

Thats the most horrible comeback I've seen. How am I supposed to prove a negative? Its not my duty to prove that they're not... You're the one making the claim, so its up to you to prove it.



Show me proof that there are no WMDs in Iraq then.



Show me proof that you're not funding it all out of your pocket just to blame the US.

No, we entered the vietnam war during the LBJ administration, "I will not send American boys halfway around the world to do a job that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

He who controls the past, controls the future. and he who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell.

Have any of us ever actully been to iraq? or witnessed these events and transactions take place first hand? No, The media tells us this and that and everything in between. I think its time people realize that cnn and fox are going to say whatever the want. But we cant know anything for certain unless we see it ourselves. Im not concerned about the us government selling terrorists weapons. I can never be certain of that. Its enough for me to know that that government put in place to protect my rights is telling me I no longer have them (Patriot act I and II). If you video taped nine eleven do freeze frames up to right before the plane hit the WTC7 you can see explosive charges detonate before the plane ever hits.

Nope. You dont see explosive charges detonate. You see the tower collapsing.

It's not my duty to prove that they are. It's not my duty to force you into a state of mind you should work your way through by yourself. It IS my duty to exercise my freedom of speech and right to an oppinion, and that s exactly what i'm doing.

I have watched videos Me and my mother recorded on the day the towers were hit. In freeze frame, dont tell me what I did a did not see.

I have watched them also. Dont tell ME what I did and didnt see.



Yes, yes it is. You made the accusation that the US is still funding Al Qaida, you have to prove it.

What you merely saw was the collapse of the tower, what you interpreted was charges being detonated.

If the USA doesn't fund Al Quadiea, who does? I don't understand it. The UK admit they fund the IRA, our terrorist group, yet america are always quick to deny they sell weapons to middle-eastern groups. Although I have no conclusive evibdence, if you (as somone said) follow the money trail and look around, you'll see that the US deals weapons to AQ and similar organisations.

OBL is one of the worlds richest men... then theres also Al Qaida sympathisers(sp?)...

Some people see consipiracy in every action our government makes. We all know our govt. is not close to perfect, but gimme a break.

So what caused the 3 explosions? The small fires? They stood forabout an hour then they suddenly collapsed. Why? I doubt the fire would be big enough to cause that much damage. Plus the explosions happen before I see in change in the tower so I don't see how the collapse could have caused.
Also the steel truses fit exactly on the truck. Unless they specifically asked for trucks that size then I would count that as more evidence of it being an inside job as it could have been caused by demolition charges.

There is so much wrong with this kind of thinking that responding to it is probably a waste of time. You made the assertion; now provide evidence.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are selling weapons to Al Qaeda, presumably in some cynical plot to ensure a perpetual war. Why they would need to do this, when there is a healthy international arms trade, is something else you will have trouble explaining.

If you make a claim you've got to give supporting evidence and not ask people to prove a negative. If you want this discussion to go anywhere then show us the money trail. Show me the money trail! Show me the money...

Why would the CIA destroy its own headquarters?

For insurence money? Because they can use it for problem-reaction-solution to pass PATRIOT 1 & 2?

This was a major blow to the Police State. They could have achieved the same for much less damage, disruption and disgrace. This didn't advance their interests at all, they don't need to create any crisis, they have been building up the Police State for 25 years and most Americans demand more, more, more. Most of this stuff is true but this was not a self inflicted wound. You still want to believe in the Myth of American invincibility, perhaps many of the inconsistencies of the official story are to cover up the actual methods the terrorists used so others don't learn and hide weaknesses in American defences. The WTC towers were unique in construction, there are no other similar designed buildings in the World. Its like they had steel Armour, perhaps that played a role in their collapse.

I don't see conspiracy in evrey action your goerment takes. I say your because I am not from the US. I've never been there and never will be given the oppertunity to vote there, for the american vote for presidency effects the entire world. It is because of this fact, I say that they are my goverment.

Your interpretation of charges detonateing is not inaccurate, and you're right, there is still no conclusive evibdence to suggest there were any, but there is also no conclusive evibdence to suggest that the towers callopsed because of the planes.

The goverment needs excuses for these wars to avoid international incidents. That is why they would destroy something their people hold dear.

Well when an airliner slams into a building shortly before it collapses, I would say there's a pretty good chance that the two events are related, wouldn't you?

And if a war is decleared and the USA invade Afghanistan shortly afterwards despite no conclusive evibdence the suspect is there, and engage in an improportionate war, generateing oil revenue along the way, I would say theres a prettey good chance of a conspiracy.

Did you even read the posts before that one?

How much oil revenue has the war in Afghanistan generated?

Wouldn't it be easier just to blow up the buildings and blame Osama, not worry about airliners at all. I think they invaded Afghanistan mainly to not appear powerless.

They didnt go to war in Afghanistan just cuz OBL might be there, they went to war cuz Afghan supported OBL.

Oh and if it was a conspiracy, you'd think the US would be able to implicate the enemy they'd go after AFTER Afghan: SH.

That doesnt make the war any less improportinate or any more warranted.

Afghanistan supporting OBL doesnt justify a war against Afghanistan after what his group did on 9/11?

The word is "disproportionate".

And the war in Afghanistan is as warranted as any war can be.

And I ask again: How much oil revenue has the war in Afghanistan generated?

Well the towers just stood their for an hour then collapsed in a uniform way, shortly after explosions on the side of the building. If it was the plane that brought it down then why didn't it do it sooner and wouldn't the fires be bigger?

Well, this was a pretty unique event. It's kind of hard to tell exactly how long it would take, and exactly how the buildings collapsed. Maybe with computer models it could be done.

And why would the fires be bigger? They were burning for weeks under the rubble.

No, not shortly after the explosions on the side of the building, it started collapsing and thats when there were what seemed to be explosions on the side of the building, which was due to the floor being crushed.



Thats like saying "Why didnt the car explode right on impact instead of a few minutes after it!" (Well, back when cars were made as vulnerable as that)

And about the fires... didnt you see all that smoke?

Afghanistan supporting 'AG's' actions does not warrant a war. If that is Americas only reason to declear war on them then they are hypocrites, working against their own 'Democracy' and freedom of speech.

Secondly, I do not know how much oil revenue the afghanistan war has generated. Why would I? I'm 14

Well, when you wrote:



I foolishly assumed that you had something to back up your assertion.

Stay in school.

How so? Al Qaida attacked the US... How is the US supposed to protect themselves if they dont go after Al Qaida? The war in Afghanistan was every bit justified.

First there are two stories here, when did you see the explosions, one guy says when the plane hits, the other when the buildings collapse. There were many reports of explosions when the buildings collapsed but that doesn't mean that the explosions were intentional. I saw one aerial photo of the rubble with what looked like a giant crater where WTC 7 was.

I'm sorry, but this comment was rude, arrogant and discriminateing.

Firstly, never in the origonal post did I state it was a war over oil. I also provided a time line to sufficently back up my theory on Americas economey and how war makes it sustanable.

Secondly, the fact that I'm still in school does not remove my right to state a fair oppinion. If you beleive it does perhaps its you who shouldn't be here. I'm as intellegent as anyone here. Am I reading too much into what you said, or am I spot on? Would you rather I lie about my age?

No, but your age doesnt permit you to make comments and then use as a scapegoat to not have to back them up.

I never used it as a scape-goat. Truly, why would I know about the oil trade? I use that as an example, but war creates revenue in many ways, not just oil, and the fact that I have no evibdence of oil revenue does not mean their isnt any.

With regards to the "secondary explosion" theory:
First of all, so what?!!! These were massive buildings which had natural gas lines running all over the place.
The initial impact likely severed gas lines in multiple locations and gas leaks developed. When the heat of the ensuing impact reached those areas... BOOM!
Come on, think about engineering reality before suggesting a conspiracy.
Secondly, wouldn't one imagine that WTC internal security had one or more "special rooms" which contained automatic assault weapons, lots of ammo, tear gas, and maybe a small selection of hand grenades to deal with site-specific security threats? Of course they would and we would not hear about it.
Anyway, once the impact, heat and fire reached those areas... BOOM!
So, there you have it. No conspiracy.

Do you think if the towers had not callopsed the USA would not have invaded afghanistan?

The post is about the event and the war that followed. In the origonal post I said that I had no explanation for the collapse of the towers and I stand by that. Even if the collapse of the towers wasn't intentional, how do you rule out conspiracy so quickly?

And on the subject of oil; the US needs the dollar to remain the currency of international trade if it is to retain its position as the world superpower. Above all then, the US is desperate to ensure that the global oil trade continues to be conducted primarily in dollars. That means having the determining say in the routing of oil and gas pipelines over and above US commercial involvement in its extraction at source. This is when straightforward commercial decisions are tempered by the over-arching interest of US capitalism as a whole, when the American state becomes politically and militarily involved for the sake of wider objectives, objectives which often come up against the interests of other states and increasingly against those of its European 'allies'. In other words this is the heart of imperialist competition in the 21st century.

Oh, and by the way, have you ever seen a volitile vapor explosion? I have. I was removing carpet glue residue from a basement using acetone. I briefly left and went upstairs, and the vapors apparently travelled through floor vents to another small room which had the water heaters(according to the fire dept.). 2 explosions. One in that room and the second in the large room I was working on.
It shook the house, blew out the basement windows, and we saw flames as wide as the windows billowing out about 6-feet. The FD said the temp. inside the room I was working on reached over 2000 degrees.
So, yeah, it happens.