Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks

Edited by redhen
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job...

Oh, okay. I'll reply later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Premise 1: Obama did it.

Premise 2: He's a black muslim terrorist because I said so.

Main Conclusion: Therefore Obama did it.

That about sum it up for ya?... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying that i dont have all the facts/evidence or actually beleive all of the following:

Premise 1. President bush was heavily involved with weapons manufacturers, including millions in investments. The way this companies profit would increase drastically was a full scale war.

Premise 2. People in certain parts of the world hate america. Make sure these people are allowed to enter the us and are not stopped by the local authorities. Allow a terrorist attack to occur to galvanise support for said war.

Main conclusion. You have achieved the desired result with minimal effort, allowing others to do the dirty work.

Disclaimer again, this post only partially reflects my viewpoint. The Carlyle group investments and the cia intervention in the arrests of the terrorists on the no fly list are facts. The rest is not evidenced.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying that i dont have all the facts/evidence or actually beleive all of the following:

Woah you guys are fast. I edited my post to remove the syllogism. All I'm after is a sound reason why.

Premise 1. President bush was heavily involved with weapons manufacturers, including millions in investments. The way this companies profit would increase drastically was a full scale war..

Ok, so the reason for this inside job was that Bush would make mega bucks off the 'ol military industrial complex? Have I got you right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah you guys are fast. I edited my post to remove the syllogism. All I'm after is a sound reason why.

Ok, so the reason for this inside job was that Bush would make mega bucks off the 'ol military industrial complex? Have I got you right?

Would tens/hundreds of millions in personal gain be counted as a potential reason?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would tens/hundreds of millions in personal gain be counted as a potential reason?

Sure, that's a possible explanation. Not sure how probable it is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt that hole in the pentagon was a bit small for such a large plane to go through.

Do you have a reason why they would have done this? If you believe it was an inside job that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, that's a possible explanation. Not sure how probable it is.

You think thats its much more likely that it was an inside job to give soldiers combat experiance? For what purpose do they need this experiance? And why would that disclude insider trading for personal gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A possible reason would be the banks making a bloddy killing off of war meaning with out banks controling everything there would be no wars. To bankrupt the richest nation on the planet and take the power back to the bank of england.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Banks control everything and every government. The US was suppose to be a nation that could not be corupted by the banking systems of yor but here we are the banks running a nation that ran from the banks. The Us should never have gone with the fedral reserve.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attacks were a ploy to put a nation in a forieghn banks control. Yes people made money off the attacks lots of people and lots of money but not for why you think, weapons manufacturing is nothing when you look at the bigger picture.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a reason why they would have done this? If you believe it was an inside job that is.

To show Americans a false pretense that they were not safe nore it`s leaders to envoke a publice out cry for war hence allowing the banks to enslave the nation faster and quicker for an agenda we might possibly see in this life time.

Just to be clear Bush had nothing to do with this at all except knowing what to invest in wink wink same with a few others

Edited by The Silver Thong
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think its so crazy to think it was anything but what it was ! Al Quada ! OR O.B one ! :no:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think thats its much more likely that it was an inside job to give soldiers combat experiance?

Nope, just that it's one possible explanation, I didn't say it was a good one.

For what purpose do they need this experiance?

Practice, nothing like the real thing. Use it or lose it...

And why would that disclude insider trading for personal gain?

It wouldn't necessarily preclude it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A possible reason would be the banks making a bloddy killing off of war

Are you just throwing that out there as an idea or do you believe it to be true?

meaning with out banks controling everything there would be no wars.

That's not the case. Wars have been around a lot longer than banking.

To bankrupt the richest nation on the planet and take the power back to the bank of england.

The attacks were a ploy to put a nation in a forieghn banks control.

To show Americans a false pretense that they were not safe nore it`s leaders to envoke a publice out cry for war hence allowing the banks to enslave the nation faster and quicker for an agenda we might possibly see in this life time.

So a plot to make money and enslave the U.S.A. by the Bank of England and some foreign banks. Zurich gnomes perhaps?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe it was a conspiracy. I tend to be trusting to a fault, I'll admit that. But I also have some common sense and logic weighs heavily against a conspiracy. Maintaining a secret by the numbers of people it would have taken to execute such a plan is impossible imo. We are 11 years out and not a single person has confessed. Not one individual has displayed recordings, transcripts or eyewitness accounts that can be substantiated that prove a conspiracy by our government. I worked for the US Federal government as a VA hospital employee for 5 years. The fed is NOT a sensible, efficiently run institution. They have trouble tying shoelaces due to bureaucracy. THIS is not an entity capable of such secrecy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SilverThong said what I was going to say but I'll say it again in one word: Globalism

Edited by acidhead
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SilverThong said what I was going to say but I'll say it again in one word: Globalism

Silverthong claimed it was executed by the Bank of England and some other foreign banks, to make money and enslave the U.S.A.

Globalism is a vague phenomenon, could you narrow down a list of masterminds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it happened because we in the US were incapable of imagining such an attack. We did not take seriously the few warnings coming from people who were in a position to realize the danger. The first thing I thought of that morning when the shock began to dissipate a bit was Tom Clancy. He wrote a plot line in a novel called Debt of Honor a few years prior to the attack about a terrorist crashing a 747 into a joint session of congress at the capitol. I wondered if the book was in Arabic and OBL might have been a fan. Ultimately, if a conspiracy HAS to be blamed then following the money is the only angle that makes sense. I guess I'm incapable of believing anyone capable of such a horror just for money.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the neo con manifesto written in 2000 called Project for the new American Century. It will tell you all you need to know about why our own killed 3000 that day.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a very small video on who benefited the most from 9/11. This is just scratching the surface though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question just as important. Who didnt benefit from 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the neo con manifesto written in 2000 called Project for the new American Century. It will tell you all you need to know about why our own killed 3000 that day.

I'm looking for your own logical arguments. I don't want pictures of thermite residue or Youtube videos of "objects" flying into buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it happened because we in the US were incapable of imagining such an attack.

By it you mean the truther movement, right?

I think this has some merit. It seems to be a popular explanation for conspiracy theories. Another example is JFK, it's hard for some people to believe that something so devastating could have been the work of one lone sniper.

But there's another reason, political ideologies. I understand there is a tenured professor in Florida who publicly claimed that the Sandy Hook school massacre was an inside job. Not that he can't imagine that a lone madmen could do this deed but that it fits with his pre-existing paranoia. The gov't wants to disarm its citizens so they stage a school massacre with "crisis actors".

To me this is not just a peculiar theory, it's an affront to the parents. Their are conspiracy websites that have annotated pictures of the deceased children pointing out alleged identical clothing with other children. These parents have to live with these disgusting sites.

911 conspiracies are the same affront to the victims families and the I am alarmed at the popularity of truther ideology not just in the young and credulous but among college professors. I had one of these persons as a prof, in fact he taught logic. He let his ideology run amok, in the classroom. He once showed us a Youtube vid and asked "how does steel turn to dust?" That was his big evidence.

Sometimes, some people believe want they want to believe. In almost all cases though self-delusion is ethically wrong.

Edited by redhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.