It must have been a Zionist plot then.
What I want to know is why, prior to the war in Afghanistan, did the Taliban say to the US that if the US showed them the evidence they had that showed OBL was the architect of 911, they’d hand him over to a 3rd country, who the US could then arrange extradition with. The response from the US was “we don’t need to show evidence, we know he’s guilty”.
The Taliban made the offer on 3 separate occasions prior to the war, and then once more during the war before they fell from power.
Why didn’t the US take them up on the offer? Sure it could have been a bluff, but no one tried to find out. The war in Afghanistan could have been completely unnecessary. And the US would have OBL.
That’s because it’s Osama’s evil twin brother, Ollama Bin Sadin. Everyone has an evil twin, don’t you know?
I don’t know who was involved in this in particular, but I do not believe it was the people the American government is trying to say it was. They got their “second Pearl Harbor” and subsequently, their war for oil, so everyone should just shut up and nod in ignorant bliss.
My first guess outside of AQ, whom I do believe ultimately were behind it, would be Saudi Arabia.
So it is still feasible that Al Qaeda / Osama bin Laden wasn’t behind the 9/11 attacks at all then?
jd, obviously the supposed terrorists involved in 9/11 were mostly Saudis, but why would the country or its rulers want to do that to the States?
I do not believe this. No.
[quote]
jd, obviously the supposed terrorists involved in 9/11 were mostly Saudis, but why would the country or its rulers want to do that to the States?[/quote][/quote]
Well, the government? Probably not, but remember there are lots of families there with hundreds of millions of dollars. The 911 attacks were fairly low tech. All it would take would be one family to fund them, OBL was most likely the ONLY banker there, but it wouldn’t surprise me if others were complicit.
And really, if you read up on the amount of money SA puts into Islamic education in the USA, THEIR brand of it, Wahibism, then pretty much that’s all the reason they would need.
Bernard Lewis likened Saudi Arabian Wahibbists to The Ku Klux Klan with 100 billion dollars.
I’ll take extremists dickheads for 400$ Alex.
Well, with Afghanistan and now Iraq in political turmoil…get it, turmOIL, anyways, thanks to Operation Shiite Hits the Fan, Saudi Arabia has less competition on the petroleum front.
How about … Pakistan?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=911&hl=en
Watch from 58 minutes onwards. The money trail from the attack leads right back to Pakistan. 
[quote=“cfimages”]What I want to know is why, prior to the war in Afghanistan, did the Taliban say to the US that if the US showed them the evidence they had that showed OBL was the architect of 911, they’d hand him over to a 3rd country, who the US could then arrange extradition with. The response from the US was “we don’t need to show evidence, we know he’s guilty”.
The Taliban made the offer on 3 separate occasions prior to the war, and then once more during the war before they fell from power.
Why didn’t the US take them up on the offer? Sure it could have been a bluff, but no one tried to find out. The war in Afghanistan could have been completely unnecessary. And the US would have OBL.[/quote]
Even if they had really been willing to hand over OBL, which I doubt (got proof?), that would have left the rest of al-Qaeda still under their wing.
Rummy’s comments about the missiles hitting the Pentagon is interesting in conjunction with the small hole in the Pentagon and the multiple unreleased security videos. I would also like to know how a legible passport was found among the rubble, and what the purpose was to the irregular security procedures at the twin towers in the weeks leading up to the attack. There are some other odd facts which raise odd questions that I would like to see serious answers to. The utter lack of rubble in Pennsylvania is another very strange situation.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“cfimages”]What I want to know is why, prior to the war in Afghanistan, did the Taliban say to the US that if the US showed them the evidence they had that showed OBL was the architect of 911, they’d hand him over to a 3rd country, who the US could then arrange extradition with. The response from the US was “we don’t need to show evidence, we know he’s guilty”.
The Taliban made the offer on 3 separate occasions prior to the war, and then once more during the war before they fell from power.
Why didn’t the US take them up on the offer? Sure it could have been a bluff, but no one tried to find out. The war in Afghanistan could have been completely unnecessary. And the US would have OBL.[/quote]
Even if they had really been willing to hand over OBL, which I doubt (got proof?), that would have left the rest of al-Qaeda still under their wing.[/quote]
Proof that they made the offer, or proof that they’d have handed him over? If it’s proof they made they offer, I can dig up a link that I posted in another thread - it was reported in all the media at the time.
If it’s proof that they’d have handed him over, well, that I don’t have. And, like you, I doubt they would have. My point was that it was never tried. We’ll never know whether it was a legitimate offer or a stalling bluff.
But what if they had have handed him over. The most repressive, brutal, medieval Islamic regime that was in power actually working with the US in a police action. Imagine the message that would send to the Islamic world. It could have made the whole war on terror a police/crime action, rather than an all out shooting war. I’d bet there’d be a lot less terrorists/would be terrorists today if evidence, partnership and arrest were employed instead of bombs, renditions and the overthrow of regimes.
FWIW, I do think that the Taliban losing power was a good thing. Unfortunately, outside of Kabul, not a lot has changed for the Afghani’s. They just grow more opium now.
The Taliban were a bunch of pricks. No foul there.
The plot thickens:
BBC Reports Building 7 Collapse, 23 Minutes BEFORE it Fell!
Obviously the US government hat informed news agencies in advance of the collapse so that they could prepare the reports but the BBC broadcasted it too early. In fact the live broadcast just happened to fail shortly before the building actually did collapse. And, what a coincidence, the BBC claims it has already deleted the original footage and lost the press release.
Now how is that for a conspiracy theory?
That is incredible.
Given that the building owner is shown on video telling how he told the for department to ‘pull’ the building, and that its collapse was identical to a controlled demolition, and that we now have further evidence that reports were given of its collapse in advance, is there anyone out there who still denies that, at least in this instance, the government had foreknowledge of the collapse?
Five Reasons To Deny 911 Was An Inside Job
1. Comfort
Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world–a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community–want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency
Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer “to get along to go along,” to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint–but only the mildest, acceptable complaint–and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice
Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction
Conviction–to be convinced of one’s rightness—and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion
A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government–NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials—know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime. Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Investigate for yourself.
Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime
(Google video)
– You might as well learn now and help flush out the truth.
=======================================
“Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.”
Frederick Douglas (former slave & America’s first
civil rights leader 1818-1895)
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things
over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to
kind of catapult the propaganda.”
– President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY.
[quote=“Rascal”]The plot thickens:
Obviously the US government hat informed news agencies in advance of the collapse so that they could prepare the reports but the BBC broadcasted it too early. In fact the live broadcast just happened to fail shortly before the building actually did collapse. And, what a coincidence, the BBC claims it has already deleted the original footage and lost the press release.
Now how is that for a conspiracy theory?[/quote]
haha. really that’s not even funny though.
[quote=“Stray Dog”]That is incredible.
Given that the building owner is shown on video telling how he told the for department to ‘pull’ the building, and that its collapse was identical to a controlled demolition, and that we now have further evidence that reports were given of its collapse in advance, is there anyone out there who still denies that, at least in this instance, the government had foreknowledge of the collapse?[/quote]
denies that the government flew planes into the main towers, engineered their collapse, and then executed a controlled demolition of wtc 7? yes. is there anyone that actually believes that is more like it.
While we have to be glad that the 9/11 farce is starting to be questioned by more people of conscience, and chickenhawk supporters are diminishing, there is still a long way to go before we’ll see any resemblance of true justice.
Here are some additional questions about the 9/11 “investigation” – I did take out duplicates that have been asked on earlier posts, except for a couple that are worded differently.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ACTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Why did the Bush Administration actively resist the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days, when similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started within about one week?
While the FBI has maintains their list of 19 hijackers who were solely responsible, and the administration used this information as justification to wage wars of aggression and war-profiteering, why was there no responsible investigation into how almost half of these 19 “suicide hijackers” have been reported to still be alive?
Why did the 9/11 Commission neglect to include Norman Mineta’s testimony about what he observed in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) on the morning of 9/11? "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out, "the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” If the standing orders by the vice-president were to shoot the plane down, why wasn’t the plane shot down?
Why have some 9/11 Commission members said they were lied to by the Pentagon and that the 9/11 Commission was a White House cover-up?
How can the 9/11 Commission Report be considered authoritative when zero members of the 9/11 Commission were scientists, engineers, or intelligence experts?
Why did the White House appointed chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Henry Kissinger, resign after being asked about his clients named bin-Laden?
Why aren’t the Bush family’s 30 year old business connections with the bin-Laden family included in the 9/11 Commission report?
Why did Bush and Cheney agree to speak with the 9/11 Commission only on the conditions that 1) they do so in each others company, 2) they not be under oath, 3) their testimony not be recorded?
Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to investigate CBS news reports that Osama bin Laden was in an Pakistani hospital on September 10th?
Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to report the date and circumstances of when Osama bin Laden officially stopped being a CIA asset, since George H.W. Bush’s agency trained him and his army of “freedom fighters”?
Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to investigate and report that their number one ringleader, Mohammed Atta was funded by the Pakistani I.S.I.?
THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS AND FLIGHTS 11 & 175
What caused World Trade Center Building 7 (“WTC 7”), which was never struck by any aircraft and had only minimal fires in it, to collapse at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11?
Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to make any mention of the collapse of WTC 7?
Why was molten metal found in the basement of buildings WTC 1, 2, and 7 up to six weeks after the collapses, when the 9/11 report said the fires never reached temperatures hot enough to melt steel, only weaken it?
Why are all of the official explanations (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission) of the collapses contradictory and mutually exclusive? Why do none of these explanations address the pools of molten metal that were found underneath the rubble of each collapse?
Why didn’t the 9/11 Commission explain the eyewitness testimonies of explosions preceding the collapses of the twin towers?
Why was the sworn eyewitness testimony before the 9/11 Commission by William Rodriguez (“The Keymaster Hero of 9/11”) about explosive devices going off prior to the collapses completely ignored and omitted in the final report?
Since FEMA concluded that its explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 had only “a low probability of occurrence”, why did the 9/11 Commission ignore this altogether?
THE PENTAGON AND FLIGHT 77
If Flight 77 was vaporized in the intense fire following the crash, how did it punch into and out of three rings of the Pentagon, leaving a neat round hole in the final exit hole?
If flight 77 was vaporized in the intense fire following the crash, how was it possible to find the human remains that enabled examiners to positively identify the remains of the passengers?
After punching through the final exit hole in the “C-ring” of the Pentagon, how did Flight 77 leave no wreckage?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To add to the questions presented already, here’s a published list of 115 specific omissions and lies:
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
============================================
“I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? … Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. … I just want to reassert, what Scott [ Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq ] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11.”
– Raymond L. McGovern, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
– President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY.
“Military men are just dumb, stupid, animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
– Henry Kissinger, quoted in Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam.
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
you’ll be waiting a long time alright. a loooooooooonnnggg time lol
Oh brother… The posters who are actually revealing their belief in such theories also reveal a lot about themselves. No surprise given their inability to provide coherence in other areas. What a load of shite.