Sure looks like it.
1) Read "Operation Northwoods", the US government's formerly classified plans to develop a "terror campaign" to CREATE an "apparent threat to peace in the Western hemisphere" in 1962. Page 10 describes how to FAKE an attack using a commercial plane so to TRICK the public into supporting military action on Cuba/Castro. (Just for fun, pretend it says Iraq/Hussein or Afghanistan/bin Laden wherever it says Cuba/Castro, and see if anything sounds familiar.)
2) Note that Saddam Hussein was NOT tried for anything related to 9/11. Consider how much MORE money and effort was put into finding, trying, and executing HIM than in tracking down Osama bin Laden, who was allegedly responsible.
3) The man in the infamous needle-in-a-haystack "confession" tape is clearly NOT Osama bin Laden - compare with the FBI's own photos and description and see. The 9/11 attacks are not even mentioned in the FBI's Wanted poster for him. George W. Bush stated that he was "not concerned" about bin Laden because HE KNOWS that Osama had nothing to do with it, and that the U.S. already had plans for invading the Middle East as of 9/9/01, two days BEFORE the faked attacks.
4) WHY, when Bush's scheduled appearance at an elementary school on 9/11/01 had been well-publicized, didn't the Secret Service evacuate hundreds of innocent children to safety, and whisk him away to an unknown, secure location IMMEDIATELY, if the U.S. was TRULY under attack by foreign terrorists. THREE allegedly suspicious incidents involving Middle Easterners threatening Bush were reported in the Florida town where he was staying on 9/10/01, yet instead of being rushed to safety, he continued his visit with the children (rendering him unavailable to make defensive decisions that only the President can make), and then gave a press conference at EXACTLY the time and place he was previously SCHEDULED to be. When his plane finally left Florida over a half-hour later, there was still NO military security escort. Isn't the President supposed to be protected at all costs in the event of a REAL attack on the nation? Shouldn't the schoolchildren have at least been made less of a target?
5) How did a piece of PAPER from inside the clothing of a man who was allegedly on a plane that EXPLODED in a fireball that was supposedly hot enough to vaporize the entire plane AND destroy a steel skyscraper, just happen to float out safely UNSINGED? Isn't it a little too convenient that similar items were miraculously found at the other crash sites, where the planes also mysteriously vaporized, unlike other plane crashes?
6) Larry Silverstein leased the money-pit WTC buildings just 6 weeks before 9/11, and protected them with several insurance policies that would pay out over $7 billion in the event of TWO destructive incidents (convenient, huh?!). Several requests for permits to demolish the buildings had been denied because they were full of asbestos. Fortunately, Silverstein had just negotiated the right to rebuild them in the event they were destroyed.
7) WTC7, another Silverstein property insured for hundreds of millions, was only the 3rd steel skyscraper in history to collapse due to a fire that didn't burn hot enough to actually melt steel (WTC 1 & 2 were the first two - other steel buildings with significantly larger and longer fires remain standing). In 2005, Silverstein admitted to having approved the controlled demolition of WTC7, which occured just hours after the attacks. WHEN did demolitions experts SET those charges throughout the building that day (amidst the carnage and rescue efforts), and wasn't it a bit risky setting explosives if there were lethal fires burning inside it? Why doesn't the offcial report on 9/11 mention the destruction of WTC7?
2007-01-25 12:34:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by gelfling 7
·
6⤊
6⤋
could be. maybe to use it as an excuse to do what they did in iraq or to boost a faltering economy since war increases a countries spending meaning a boost in economy.(WWII is what took the us out of the great depression) I heard that a week before the attacks that osama bin laden was at an american hospital in afghanistan and the day before the attacks, osamas brother was in dc speaking with ppl from the government. but i dont know these are things i have heard. they could be false. But what sounds too amazing to be true is how we have bulked up our homeland security so much that we havent had an attack since. doesnt that seem a little odd? i mean the tsa agents do not search everyone that comes on a plane corrrectly and their are none on buses or trains so how come no terrorist has even tried? Sounds fishy too me. but i hope nothing happens like that ever again. 9/11 was horrible
2016-05-24 00:09:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Definitely. There is more than enough information to prove that fact. The government and media lies cannot hide all the information available. As for the answer from "Trouble's Mama"? You actually believe every word the media tells you??? I feel sorry for "Trouble".
From "Lauren Says" - Steel loses 50% of it's structural strength and starts to sag at 500 degrees celcius.
Did it ever occur to you that you have hundreds of different grades of steel, many grades with specific applications in mind, such as structural steel grades used in building construction. Based on the composition of alloys used, not all steel has the same specifications, including melting point based on temperature/time window.
2007-01-25 13:09:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by the_end_time 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's quite funny how most people who think it was just terrorists believe the news doesn't filter, or choose to focus on somethings and not others.
It's quite funny how most people don't care enough about what is really going on to see at least the possibility, and probability of what happened, and why it happened.
It's quite funny how dumb most of your really are calling yourselves Patriots, but not looking at the real history of this country.
It's quite funny how the Bush family got its fortune by doing trade with the Third Reich.
It's quite sad how much Bush is becoming like Hitler.
It's quite sad your most likely reading this, and not going to bother finding out why I am saying this.
And it's quite sad a thief will come in the night, a police state will be born, and it could have been avoided if people sought the truth instead of happily being spoonfed what they are told the truth is.
2007-01-25 14:03:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
A lot of questions from 9-11, and no straight answers from anyone. Some interesting ideas are listed at my sources website.
2007-01-25 14:31:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by kds5862 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't think they did it or planned it. But I think some in the Bush Adminstration knew that is was going to happen before 9/11 (the Neo Cons espeically) and they did nothing to try and stop it. Bush probably didn't know because he's just a figure head & he's just to ignorant to know about something like that. All the lies that we now know the Bush Adminstration was telling us just makes it seem like they are even more gulity about 9/11 & they probably are not being honest about it. But I have a strong feeling we will never know the truth.
2007-01-25 12:38:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
9/11 was an inside job , its the starting point by the way 9/11 isonly a small part of the gigantic picture heres who how and why http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm
sadly this is the sort of world we live in , iam i righ in saying you have jus seen a film on it and it hasnt really sunk in yet??? it took me a couple of days to take it all in then dug a little deeper . people need to wake up to this because it is and will shape our lives in a big way where ever you are on the planet , anyway hope this helps you , odviously its up to you to make your own opinion and look into this dont let people tell you what to think.
2007-01-25 13:20:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
friend no one cares about 911 anymore, it's old news. they stopped looking for usama bin ladin years ago, and despite any questions some might have, there will be no answers forthcoming. one thing is for sure it served it's purpose. america is now a different nation, we now have homeland security and the patriot act. there is no privacy in america anymore. the military was mobilized and is now involved in what is called a war on terrorism. geo bush was re-elected as prez and actually got a few votes last time. there are thousands of people who actually support the policies he has created. a great opportunity for misfits and sociopaths to group together and rail against freedom.
2007-01-25 13:04:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think Americans have a serious dependency on conspiracy theories. The American government is a big "organization," and though it may have been possible for some members to be involved of have knowledge of certain terrorist activity, realistically I wouldn't give Bush or his administration the credit or level of intelligence to be able to pull it off entirely on their own.
2007-01-25 12:34:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Euralalya 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Oh. my. God.
Only an absolute idiot would think so. The entire event of 9.11 did more BAD than it could ever GOOD(for the government).
Gelfling, the only credible source on your exstensive list was the one linked to the FBI. Conspiracy sites? WIKIPEDIA? Ha, I think not. And besides, fire not hot enough? Steel loses 50% of it's structural strength and starts to sag at 500 degrees celcius. How would you know what the hottest temperature was? How else do you think the towers fell down?
KeepsonDancing: I googled it. It came up with wikipedia and a whole bunch of conspiracy-theory-sites that don't provide enough credible information. Probably the most reliable source out of all those is Wikipedia. That's saying something.
2007-01-25 12:35:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Picard Facepalm 5
·
3⤊
4⤋