English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What do you think really happened?

2006-08-14 09:53:07 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

19 answers

Only massive retarded Liberals think this

2006-08-14 10:04:21 · answer #1 · answered by itsallover 5 · 0 2

I don't know if Bush and Bin Ladden are in cahoots, but I do have to ask some of the un answered questions from the farenhight 911 video .

If Bin Laden attacked america on 9 11 why are there less then 10 000 American troops in Afganastan but close to 150 000 in Iraq? I mean sodam insane was an asshole that would have had to be delt with in time i'm sure, but did the man ever really attack America ? Not that i'm aware of .There is lots of oil there ill say, and none in Afganastan (coincidence?? ) I think not

Who is getting rich from the high Oil prices? (what business are the Bushes involved in other then politics ? Oh **** its Oil thats it, imagine that

The whole family is as crooked as a dogs hind leg and the fact that you Americans keep voteing for him is telling the world that you agree with his ideas.

I wonder if New Orleans was Texas if it would be still laying in ruin today,or even ever.

George W Bush is the biggist mistake that America has ever made. As long as they are in power the big coporations will be bilking and cheatiing Americans out of billions of dollars while G W B is kissing their asses while he chuckles at what he believes, is the collective stupidity of Americans.

Thats my oppnion and i'm intitled to it

2006-08-14 10:19:06 · answer #2 · answered by Shawn S 3 · 2 0

Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "The Grand Chessboard" that the only way to assure US global leadership in the 21st century is to secure the gateway between Europe, Asia, and Africa - specifically Central Asia. He lamented that this kind of military task would likely not be supported by the American people unless there was a "Pearl Harbor" event that would rally the public behind the effort. Brzezinski was also a senior intelligence advisor to Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton. He also wrote the current policy recommendations on dealing with Iran.

In 2000, an organization called the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) wrote a paper on the importance of maintaining US global supremacy. Like Brzezinski, they also advocated control of Central Asia. Also like Brzezinski, the PNAC stated that this necessary step was unlikely to take place unless "a new Pearl Harbor" took place on US soil and gave the government the opportunity to use it as justification for action.

Members of the PNAC included Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, "Scooter" Libby, Jeb Bush, and many other popular names who comprise the Bush Administration or who are very close to the Administration.

Motive has been established - on both sides of the political aisle.

People should look up FBI supervisor Dave Frasca. He was in charge of the OBL unit (Osama Bin Laden). When the FBI Special Agent in Phoenix wrote the infamous Phoenix memo in early August, 2001, it was Dave Frasca who reviewed the memo and decided not to act upon it. The memo detailed suspiscious activity at Arizona flight schools and warns that an immediate effort should be started to identify possible terrorist suspects. The memo specifically named one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Shortly thereafter, FBI Supervisor Dave Frasca was contacted by the Minneapolis Field Office. They had arrested a man named Zacharias Moussaoui as a possible terrorist suspect and requested a warrant to search his belongings. Agent Frasca denied permission for the warrant. Over the next two weeks, Frasca denied 70 requests for a warrant, even after being told that there was reason to believe that hijacked planes may be used to target the World Trade Center. (The agents were probably frantic because they'd already peaked in Moussaoui's laptop but didn't want to reveal that they violated rules that might blow their chances of busting the entire ring).

The Minneapolis office even turned to the French for help, where they received an intelligence report linking Moussaoui with Al Qaida. The head of the FBI's OBL Unit determined that this didn't justify a warrant to search the laptop. After the attacks unfolded, the frantic agents in Minneapolis were finally granted a warrant. The laptop revealed plans to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center. Soon after that, Dave Frasca was promoted.

Additionally, Al Qaida was utilized by the US during the 1990's in the Balkans. The Clinton Administration aligned themselves with the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), a muslim terrorist group whos' objective was the overthrow of the Kosovan government. This group was used in Bosnia to disrupt the Serbian conflict in the region, and they were beefed up with Al Qaida operatives from Afghanistan whom the CIA had worked with as part of their effort to build a mujahideen opposition of the Soviet invasion.

There's enough information on public record to convince any jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I've given you about 0.001%. Not the mainstream arguments that get presented as straw men and then knocked down by elite publications such as Popular Mechanics (Hirsch family publications).

A large percentage of criminal convictions in the US are the result of circumstantial evidence. There's enough legitimate, documented, official circumstantial evidence in the 9/11 case to put dozens if not 100's of people behind bars right now. What we don't have is a political party who has clean hands in the crime, therefore we don't have the political clout to generate an investigation, let alone a trial.

Our government is guilty - on both sides of the aisle. The evidence, the circumstances before the events, during the events, and after the events leave absolutely no question to anyone who applies cognitive reasoning and due diligence to the facts.

2006-08-14 10:53:55 · answer #3 · answered by shorebreak 3 · 0 0

Just think for a minute how many people it would have taken for 9/11 to have been an inside job. People that make this kind of stuff up must know that their crazy idea can't be disproved because you can not provide evidence concerning something that never existed. Making up this kind of stuff is one of the indications that a person is a POLIWID.

2006-08-14 10:09:21 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

Look I don't know and I really don't give a rat's behind if it was an inside job or not. All we know is that it caused a lot of pain and grief through our country and then this asshole our so called "president" goes out and causes another terrorist act and goes to another country and declares war to many innocent people when all he wants is the damned oil to keep himself rich. He keeps our soldier at war for months for something so stupid. This is just my humble opinion I know that some people will agree with my theory and others will disagree

2006-08-14 10:04:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Me.. I do.

Now I think that there were really terrorists on the plane, but i think that these terrorists were told to hijack them. also, i don't understand how the terrorists could have gotten to the pilots area, when there is a huge door with a ton of locks. it makes no sense. and then they managed to kill them with box cutters. how could tehy get box cutters?

also, i believe the government added a ton of explosives in the WTC's.. because once it collapsed, you could constantly here "boom" "boom" "boom" floor after floor because they were blowing it up to keep it collapsing. there is no way that a huge building, made of CONCREATE could collapse like that. I'm sorry.. it makes no sense.

i'm not sure how the government did it, but i do believe it is an inside job. i believe there should be another investigation led by the United Nations, or even the European Union, but NOT the american government.. that way we can get the facts.

Also, WTC 7.. did you see how it just collapsed, with no fire, or nothing? the man even ADMITTED they decided to "pull it." But doesn't it take days to get all the explosives in it to "pull it?" of course.. it would have taken days, maybe even weeks to get the explosives in there to pull it.

so yes, i think it did happen.

2006-08-14 10:01:57 · answer #6 · answered by Jacques 3 · 1 0

Ever since the Watergate scandel, the media has been looking for the next big conspiracy. The media was looked at like they were gods after watergate, and they need that kind of attention. Thats why they report conspiracies such as the levees being bombed by the government, and Bush planning 9/11.

2006-08-14 10:24:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Think for at least 30 seconds before you think this is crazy.

1. Jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel. Weaken it, yes, but how weak does steel have to be to allow a building to collapse @ NEAR FREEFALL velocity? you have to REMOVE the supprts or else the rummle will slow down as it nears the bottom.
2. Thermite with added sulfur DOES. Commonly used in Military.
3. A great deal of wreckage was heavily (Sulfidated?).
Some steel was EVAPORATED. that's way too ******* hot for jet fuel.
4. Have you seen the picture of the woman standing IN the
PLANE HOLE? Seems really hot to me.
5. Molten steel leaked out one of the buildings and onto the street.
6. Yellow Molten metal was pulled out of the wreckage WEEKS
later. Not days. Under WTC 1,2 &7!!! Jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to do this.
Doesn't yellow mean it can't be aluminum from the planes?
7. WTC 7 collapsed 7+ hrs after 1&2. It was not hit by a plane.
8. The DOD, CIA, and i believe FBI had offices in WTC 7.
You hopefully must have clearence to get in to the sensitive
parts of the building necessary to bring it down w/explosives.
Either security sucked, or it was an INSIDE Job maybe a
rouge element in DOD,CIA or FBI.
9. PNAC (Project For A New American Century) stated it's
desire for an increasingly militarized USA, but stated that they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to motivate people towards this militarization. 9/11 was directly compared to pearl harbor by every major media outlet.
10. Which sitting vice presidetn was a member of PNAC?
11. Wich company formerly headed by Cheyney has profited heavily form Gov't contracts as a result of 9/11, Afganistan,& Iraq
12. Why were FBI confiscating cameras of people filming 9/11. For NATIONAL SECURITY? That's like beating the cat after the dog poops on the floor. Seems like they already had a national security problem.
13. Where was the huge rolls royce engine @ the pentagon?
A rolls royce spokesman, when asked about the little engine in the photos, could not identify it as ANY RR engine he had ever seen.
14. Of course planes did hit the WTC 1&2, but that was to provide a laman's reason as to why they fell.
15. If 2500 soldiers & who knows how many Iraqis are OK to send to their death, why not 3000 civilians? What is the difference?
For those who would call me "UnAmerican for even thinking this nonsense", it is YOUR DUTY to ask questions of YOUR EMPLOYEES when something bad happens. By employees, I mean politicians. If you accept every one of their explanations, they will lie with impunity. Hasn't history PROVEN this? If you do not hold employees responsible for their actions, you are not a good BOSS.

Watch the videos of Osama BEFORE 9/11
then the ones of him after 9/11 where he states that it was a GOVERNMENT OPERATION.
THEN watch the video of osama claiming responsibility. Its NOT THE SAME DUDE. IT IS AN IMPOSTOR!!!!!!
The popular Mechanics article was WEAK. Written by Michael Chertoffs cousin. The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

2006-08-14 10:07:39 · answer #8 · answered by kevin g 3 · 1 0

19 dudes hi-jacked 4 planes, crashed into WTC, Pentagon and in PA.

Mistakes happened or were allowed to happen to trigger the resulting reaction-- Afghanistan and Iraq -- War on Terror.

Way too many "fishy" things with what happened on 9/11.

Inside job-- don't think so --
Inside involvement and/or knowlege, plausible.

2006-08-14 10:09:59 · answer #9 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0 1

Terrorists were to blame and one of the names was not Bush. Anyone who believes that the US government had anything whatsoever to do with the events of 9/11 are totally insane and should be in a psychiatric ward. How could you possibly believe such a thing was even remotely possible. Blame those responsible - the terrorists who seized the planes and killed all those innocent people............

2006-08-14 10:03:07 · answer #10 · answered by thomasrobinsonantonio 7 · 0 2

wow... people think 9/11 was an inside job? What are people smoking these days?

2006-08-14 10:16:45 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers