• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

American Gov responsible for 911

A

Anonymous

Guest
A friend of mine recently brought up that he belives America was responsible for attacking the Trade centre and Pentagon. He claimed that it was a missile and not a plane which struck the Pentagon and that all the phone calls to relatives/eye whitness accounts etc were all created by the USA government and people in their service.

He said that some damage to the Pentagon wasnt consistant with a crashed plane hence the missile idea.

No doubt this must have been discussed before somewhere on the board but it is the first tie ive heard the idea.

Id be interested on your views/ideas on this as myself i cant understand it. My friend mentioned it was to divert attention away from an investigation into Bush but surly killing thousands of his own people would be just a tad extreme?? The other idea mentioned was to rally support but its clear that that hasnt worked so well.

Myself I cant say I belive it at all
 
David Icke has a book out on this topic. Perhaps your mate read that. Was there any mention of reptiles ?
 
Ah; of course, there was Lone Gunmen too. Now that was spooky.
 
David Icke has a book out on this topic. Perhaps your mate read that. Was there any mention of reptiles ?

Lol no, suprisingly he was very vague on he whole thing
 
As yes already checked this out, cant spot it myself however have heard the arguement the plane would have disintergrated upon crashing the the Pentagon. The strongest arguement seems to be for Bush gaining support but why not try being a stong and popular leader instead of massacring your own people??

Mind you have also heard the changing shares in airlines incident prior to the attack and have to admit it does seem odd
 
Bisto said:
Mind you have also heard the changing shares in airlines incident prior to the attack and have to admit it does seem odd

IIRC, there was a lot of talk at the time about known Al-Quaida moneymen being involved in that burst of trading. That talk kinda died off when the Enron story broke, tho'.

But given that we now know the authorities knew about 'a non-specific threat' on 911, it's also possible that people (note very loose usage of the word 'people') with ties to the intelligence community might have been doing some trading on their own behalf. But then I'm cynical about stuff like that.
 
Zygon said:
IIRC, there was a lot of talk at the time about known Al-Quaida moneymen being involved in that burst of trading. That talk kinda died off when the Enron story broke, tho'.

So perhape Enron was a distraction.
 
Too much fire for a missile. A warhead would be high explosive, (few flames, lots of smoke and dust) surely? Unless it was loaded with napalm (very unusual, but not impossible) to simulate a plane crash...which brings us back to square one.
 
Bisto

Id be interested on your views/ideas on this as myself i cant understand it.
that Idea is just BS just like the french..Islam extremist did it "thats all"..
 
If you want to simulate a airline crashing into a building and money (and the law) is no object then the best way would be to crash an actual airliner into the building.

I'm interested in the subject of who benefited financially from 9/11, especially those who appeared to be trading with foreknowledge of the events...

When you step back and try looking at the bigger picture an AntiAmerican Conspiracy does begin to suggest itself... Commit an act on your own soil which will galvenise the nation if not much of the world behind you. Use it to remove a difficult regime and attempt to decapitate the Terrorist group whom you have not only blamed for the act but are also a unifying force in the area in which much of your plan will take place.. Your intelligence community also gains direct control over the heroin production with which they pay for their own covert operations.

You then enact your main plan. Attacking and removing the regime that possesses the resources, in this case Oil, which are your main goal. Even preparing for this attack will destablise the entire surrounding region. One of the effected countries is also a liberal democracy and is allied to another country to which your own has a "special relationship" and whoms leader will also do almost anything for Power. You move weapons into the affected 'friend' for their own 'protection' and then commit to the war from which they need to be protected from.

Okay lets start naming names. You attack Iraq, claim it's oil fileds for yourself, run a pipeline through a thankful Turkey to Europe and then buy the Oil at a cut price rate from your grateful friends. QED.

Of course it's just a theory... I hope...
 
I still have my doubts about that hijacker's passport which was found perfectly intact at ground zero.
 
It does, at first glance, sound unlikely. On the other hand, they have recovered a patch from the clothing of one of the shuttle astronauts which looked in pretty good condition.
 
And then there are all those movies in which the airliner wreckage is scattered over a dozen square miles but the little kid's pink teddybear is left completely unharmed...

Or am I getting confused with Drop The Dead Donkey and Damian Day's news reports...?
 
Flame proof teddies are all the rage among the jetset, y'know.
 
government did do it

i always thought it was weird that the plane supposedly heading for the white house crashed in the last open field before the city.
 
the goverment did it...

Bullshit!

How do you cover up a conspiricy this large? Surely someone would squeel?

Now I'm no fan of the American goverment and it's atacks on freedom never mind on other countries, it's suport of a terror state (Isrial) ect, ect. However to blame a country wich has sufferd the worst peicetime atacks in recent memory of actualy being responsable for these acts is fucking nasty.

sure, meby the goverment thought that there would be a small atack killing a few hundred that it could then use to manipulate popular fealing agenst regimes it wished to displace (Afghanastan so they could put an oil pipeline through it, Iraq for the oil itself) but to claim they did it themselfs...
 
Re: Re: the goverment did it...

Emperor Zombie said:
several debris sites several miles apart and still no explanation as to how that might be).
I've always wondered if it broke up in mid-air due to excessive stress on the airframe. (Passengers battling for/with the controls, etc.)


I think also the manual in the car and the flame proof passport are suspisious evidence. but hell all it really makes for is a good thread on conspiracies, and nothing more.

If you consider the things (such as mission patches) that have been recovered after Columbia broke up, perhaps it isn't as unlikely as first thought. Also, I guess that at least one of the terrorists would be at the front of the aircraft. From what I recall the aircraft seemed to go in one side with bits then coming flying out the other side. If you're ahead of the fuel tanks then you probably stand a good chance of making out relatively uncharred.


But orchestrating their own attack? It doesn't add up, Jack.

Absolutely.
 
The more I look the more it becomes possible. Sorry folks, I'm with the Kooks on this one; the US admin were just a little too quick on the uptake if you ask me...
 
And lets not forget the news item that mysteriously vanished where bush condoned the action.

Ehh? Interested in hearing more about this
 
Thanks Emperor Zombie. Yeh remeber hearing somthing like that at the time thinking about it but cant remebr if it was from the TV or word of mouth
 
Emperor Zombie said:
bush talking about a few lives so as to spare many, and that he had to order planes to take out passenger flights 'taking appropriate action'. at that time, not from the horses mouth, but from the BBC reports, they stated there had been four planes shot down.
It is possible that this was a reference to an order that threat aircraft were to be intercepted an destroyed. It may not mean that the order was carried out. (i.e. by the time the order could be implemented there were no longer any threat aircraft in th sky.) Just a possibility, but difficult to determine one way or the other without the original source. (There was a lot of confusion in the reporting that day.)

Is the last line a typo, or did the report really claim that 4 aircraft had been shot down? If it did, then that has been well hushed-up.
 
Three minutes? About the length of time it would take for the wreckage of a shot-down plane at that height to hit the ground...
 
I'm sorry but this stinks to high heaven of Anti-americanism
 
8 miles in 3 mins = 160 mph
8 miles in 1 min = 480 mph

The former is very low speed for an airliner. If the plane was travelling at that speed it was almost certainly unpowered and out of control. The latter figure is a reasonable but not a maximum speed for an airliner.
 
Emperor Zombie said:
what does?

why don't you explain what you mean by that and quote which bits are anti- american?

what so conspiracy theories are anti american? Possible explanations for something that has been blanketed by secrecy is anti american?

all I'm asking is, how long is eight miles in flight time and that is anti american?


:confused:

I have sent you a PM concerning what i posted.

I hope it clears up any confusion (and no it's not the conspiricy that's anti-American it's, as I said, the thread.)
 
Back
Top