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

Can you imagine for one second that there are a few shadowy figures meeting in secret to plan an attack. Now look at who you are asking. We have normal jobs, yet you expect me to know the exact ins and outs of this said secret meeting? To be able to tell you the names and exact motives? You may as well ask your butcher next time you see him.

It doesnt matter if that group is a radical muslim organization or otherwise, noone will be able to provide you with what you want.

If you want to get to the bottom of any situation where all the facts are not avaliable you iust need to look at who gained the most from 9/11. And it sure as hell wasnt osama. Especially as he came out and said he didnt do it while the msm showed a fat muslim claiming to be osama, wearing a gold ring (forbidden my sharia law), saying he did it.

Good,man! +1

Edited by Nuke_em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your leaders and those shadowy people in the backgrounds silently cooking another plot are responsible for every harm that is happening now,

Every harm? That's a sweeping generalization.

i cant prove this since i wouldn't be here if i could. Many tried many went missing many died from " natural casues". So dealing with such people is suicide more or less since they don't want to be known, seen or heard in any such way.

I'm not asking for proof, just a coherent, reasoned, convincing argument.

So you, me probably even your president will never know who actualy pulled it off, that is why word secret exists and you will never know who Mr.X is until someone risks alot and tries too leak it out. ..

I tossed Mr. X in there for arguments sake. It could be aliens or demonic forces, for arguments sake.

Truthers need to show a causal relationship between "who" and the attacks. Some kind of connection, which is falsifiable. If truthers keep repeating their mantra of "world banking system" or "neo-cons" or "unknown, unnamed, shadowy figures working in secret", well, there is no way to refute that, because it is unfalsifiable. It's the same situation as if you were asked "prove there is no God".

So, what we have is not an argument, just a personal belief or simple (humble) opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Plan involved Russia invading Afghanistan. During the time of their occupation, they trained, along with the CIA, a large number of 'terrorists' to put forth the ulimate plan that would bring them the World Control they sought.

Once again, you are confusing as to whom the CIA supported. The CIA supported the Afghan mujahideen, not the Arab mujahideen, which were two different groups with the latter composed of foreign fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See this Obama guy comedian why didn't he showed the picture of dead Bin Laden as passionately as he speaks at that day on 1th of May?

He didn' have to show a picture of Osama bin Laden. After all, al-Qaeda later confirmed that the United States was responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get to the bottom of any situation where all the facts are not avaliable you just need to look at who gained the most from 9/11. And it sure as hell wasnt osama.

The United States had much to lose over the 911 attacks, and it did, but al-Qaeda had much to gain. After all, al-Qaeda didn't commit the 911 attacks for no reason at all.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every harm? That's a sweeping generalization.

Well my native language isn't english and i often dont use google to correct the words... sorry grammar police..

Truthers need to show a causal relationship between "who" and the attacks. Some kind of connection, which is falsifiable. If truthers keep repeating their mantra of "world banking system" or "neo-cons" or "unknown, unnamed, shadowy figures working in secret", well, there is no way to refute that, because it is unfalsifiable. It's the same situation as if you were asked "prove there is no God".

So, what we have is not an argument, just a personal belief or simple (humble) opinion.

Well then it is no longer a personal belief but a collective belief of those who see event fishy. But 90% of global population belives in God yet they have no proof... but they still believe..

Now we have somewhat of religion of people who believe that 9/11 was pure inside job. :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you are confusing as to whom the CIA supported. The CIA supported the Afghan mujahideen, not the Arab mujahideen, which were two different groups with the latter composed of foreign fighters.

You believe what they told you. You believe what The Media reported. There was no strategic need for Russia to control Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, was anyone in the federal government fired for this colossal intelligence/security failure?

Did anyone get fired over the Pearl Harbor attack?

Did anyone get fired over the Beirut Marine base bombing?

Did anyone get fired over the attack on the U.S.S. Cole or embassies?

Did anyone get fired over the first WTC attack?

Did anyone get fired over the Benghazi attack?

I could spend all day making such a list.

My problem with this statement is that you are implying that somebody not being fired for these instances is not only the norm, but completely acceptable to you and that we should be ok with it as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You believe what they told you.

I know what I am talking about because I have done my homework. Studying and understanding military history puts me at an advantage over those who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn' have to show a picture of Osama bin Laden. After all, al-Qaeda later confirmed that the United States was responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Yes i just red about it, but the question stays.. Why not show the notorius public enemy no.1s picture to public which afterall paid for that chase and waited 10years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called the burden of proof principle. Truthers claim to know who and why, so I asked for a coherent, reasoned argument.

Still waiting ...... day 2 .....

Day 2? How about Year 11?

After 11 years the government is still not able to prove its story. Neither can you or anybody else. Burden of proof cannot be met by those supporting the official story.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i just red about it, but the question stays.. Why not show the notorius public enemy no.1s picture to public which afterall paid for that chase and waited 10years...

Perhaps one day, an image or two might be revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I am talking about because I have done my homework. Studying and understanding military history puts me at an advantage over those who don't.

I will defer to your expertise then and ask this question: Why would Russia want to Occupy Afghanistan to begin with?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, whenever I ask for "who planned and controlled the 911 attacks", I get very similar answers; unnamed, unknown, shadowy figures working in secrecy. When pressed, i get replies such as; "world banking system", "new world order", or more plainly, "Zionists"

That wasn't the question. Sure, post-modern society is going to hell in a hand basket. But the question was "who planned and controlled the 911 attacks?"

Duuude! I didn't ask for that. The question was "who planned and controlled the 911 attacks?"

Ideally, I wold like to see something like;

The Bush clan are greedy mofos p1

The Bush clan contracted Mr X and his international conglomerate to secretly hire Muslim fanatics to execute the 911 attacks. p2

Thus, 911 was an inside job (main conclusion)

“Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form”

- Immanuel Kant

Please be honest and practice the same standards of proof that you demand of others. Honesty is always the best policy.

You cannot prove that Osama planned and executed it. However the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the same parties who have covered up so much are the same parties who planned and executed the events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do tell.

p1

p2

p3

That's all very interesting and stuff, but how does that establish that Bush or some other nefarious characters inside the U.S. government planned and controlled the 911 attacks? Same response to your FAA changes proposition.

I will restate my original question again; "Who planned and controlled the 911 attacks, and why?"

Once I see a coherent, reasoned argument, then we can go through the warrants for you premises.

Thanks

I already did tell.

bush's behaviour in staying in the classroom whilst the attacks were ongoing suggests whoever made the decision to stay in the classroom knew that bush and his party were not in danger, something that could not have been known unless the events were under the control of whoever gave that order.

rumsfeld changing the defence response procedure shortly before 911 facilitated the attacks. all he had to do was be unavailable to give the scramble orders for the critical time period.

you aksed why, i already said - for empire.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States had much to lose over the 911 attacks, and it did, but al-Qaeda had much to gain. After all, al-Qaeda didn't commit the 911 attacks for no reason at all.

I see. Thats why president Bush is dead and Osama lives a life of luxury. Oh wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 2? How about Year 11?

After 11 years the government is still not able to prove its story. Neither can you or anybody else. Burden of proof cannot be met by those supporting the official story.

Actually, it has already been proven that al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Thats why president Bush is dead and Osama lives a life of luxury. Oh wait....

Considering the attacks cost the United States billions of dollars and the lost of thousands of lives, what did it cost al-Qaeda?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truthers need to show a causal relationship between "who" and the attacks. Some kind of connection, which is falsifiable. If truthers keep repeating their mantra of "world banking system" or "neo-cons" or "unknown, unnamed, shadowy figures working in secret", well, there is no way to refute that, because it is unfalsifiable. It's the same situation as if you were asked "prove there is no God".

So, what we have is not an argument, just a personal belief or simple (humble) opinion.

I see that the only part of my post you quoted was "shadowy figures meeting in secret" which i used deliberately because; 1. i cannot provide evidence other than circumstantial. 2. it could refer to both al qaeda or numerous other groups often labeled conspiracies.

What i don't understand is why you ignore the FACT that the US CIA is showing false Osamas (i.e. deliberate properganda aimed at the US public) and claiming that these people are honest and you accept their story beyond question.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the only part of my post you quoted was "shadowy figures meeting in secret" which i used deliberately because; 1. i cannot provide evidence other than circumstantial. 2. it could refer to both al qaeda or numerous other groups often labeled conspiracies.

What i don't understand is why you ignore the FACT that the US CIA is showing false Osamas (i.e. deliberate properganda aimed at the US public) and claiming that these people are honest and you accept their story beyond question.

I see that the only part of my post you quoted was "shadowy figures meeting in secret" which i used deliberately because; 1. i cannot provide evidence other than circumstantial. 2. it could refer to both al qaeda or numerous other groups often labeled conspiracies.

What i don't understand is why you ignore the FACT that the US CIA is showing false Osamas (i.e. deliberate properganda aimed at the US public) and claiming that these people are honest and you accept their story beyond question.

The simple answer to your question is that many humans ignore certain, selective facts because cognitive dissonance comes into play, and that's what cognitive dissonance actually IS--disregarding or ignoring facts that upset one's worldview. It is not a voluntary action IMO, but subconscious action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the attacks cost the United States billions of dollars and the lost of thousands of lives, but what did it cost al-Qaeda?

What did al qaeda own? Nothing. The cost to the US for the attacks has been estimated at 95 billion. The US gdp was 15 trillion. So the cost was 1/157th of the earnings of the US for one year. Not really crippling, usless you use it as an excuse for never ending war.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my native language isn't english and i often dont use google to correct the words... sorry grammar police..

no worries

Well then it is no longer a personal belief but a collective belief of those who see event fishy. But 90% of global population belives in God yet they have no proof... but they still believe..

Now we have somewhat of religion of people who believe that 9/11 was pure inside job. :clap:

Yes, I agree. Ideologists and religious people sometimes believe things, not because of sufficient evidence, but because they want to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with this statement is that you are implying that somebody not being fired for these instances is not only the norm, but completely acceptable to you and that we should be ok with it as well.

It does seem to be the case, but I don't think it should be the case.

Heads should roll.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bush's behaviour in staying in the classroom whilst the attacks were ongoing suggests whoever made the decision to stay in the classroom knew that bush and his party were not in danger, something that could not have been known unless the events were under the control of whoever gave that order.

Was President Bush warned not to return to Washington D.C.? The terrorist would have been hard-pressed trying to find that school from the sky.

...rumsfeld changing the defence response procedure shortly before 911 facilitated the attacks.

Perhaps, you can be a bit more specific?

...all he had to do was be unavailable to give the scramble orders for the critical time period.

You have to understand that Rumsfeld does not have an authority to issue shootdown orders on airliners on his own because that order can only come from the President of the United States, and then, passed down the chain of command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 2? How about Year 11?

After 11 years the government is still not able to prove its story. Neither can you or anybody else. Burden of proof cannot be met by those supporting the official story.

Mathematical proofs are common. Proof is rare if not nonexistent in the humanities. I'm not asking for proof. I'm looking for a coherent, reasoned argument from truthers.

Again, I started this thread, asking for the above argument. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on those who claim they know "who" and "why".

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.