We've all seen the questions, and the same links have been posted again and again and again. We know you think 9/11 was an "inside job." You folks are nothing if not persistent.
Some folks are now saying the capture of UK servicemen by Iran was somehow "staged" as well.
So my question is, what to you would indicate that an attack is NOT a "false flag" operation?
If you have criteria indicating a phony incident, you must have criteria indicating a real one. So tell us what a "real attack" would look like.
Please don't post all the same links. Use your OWN mind to answer.
Frankly, I think folks like you could claim ANY attack was a government operation, depending only on whether it advances your political agenda, whatever it is.
But here's a chance to answer, and "educate" us all.
2007-03-29
01:06:04
·
9 answers
·
asked by
American citizen and taxpayer
7
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Trouble Maker, can you just answer the question I asked?
2007-03-29
01:45:06 ·
update #1
A REAL attack would target something more precious than the monuments to Con greed and world dominance, such as the WTC. A REAL attack would be more emotionally painful, like levelling the New York Times building, or the warehouse that distributes Prada shoes.
Why can't you Cons just admit that the government staged 9-11? It's a well known fact that all the people in those airplanes were just actors who got so caught up in their roles that they saw it through to its conclusion. Bravo for them. I wish our Global Warming godess, Ms. Barbra Streisand, could get a juicy role like this. I mean, she doesn't really have any steady work nowadays, and she has a husband to support.
2007-03-29 01:17:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7
·
2⤊
6⤋
I guess I don't sit on this site long enough. I have only seen one question with the conspiracy theory. I don't believe that they were planned...any of them. Too many circumstantial incidents must have fallen in place at the same time for any of these to have been planned. And, when you think about it, the president really didn't need to make a connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war, since at the time, people ignored the facts and just listened to him anyway. Why go through all of the trouble, expense, etc., to carry out a planned attack, when just fabricating information and passing it on worked as well?
2007-03-29 01:20:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by auditor4u2007 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
I apologize for not answering directly, but as I am not a conspiracy theorist, per se, I really have no education to provide. But I did find your question a good one...and one I'm interested in reading the answers to...
But I would like to add the comment that the misleadings and untruths told by this administration is really only just fuel for the fire for these kinds of folks. Bush's own actions have led credibility to an otherwise unthinkable notion...
2007-03-29 01:53:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Super Ruper 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
I will try to put this in terms you can understand .
people with a brain tend to question the motives of those in power when they have been lied to .
Since as we all know dozens of lies have been told by Bush and company and Bush And the U.K. are close allies or should I say the rich have an agenda and the U.K. is no different then america the rich there want the same thing the rich here want .
How do you keep millions of people who are poor from demanding what is rightfully their's .
You keep them busy so they have no time to think .
you hide the truth so they have no information .
Today it is possible for people to find information on dozens of topics like 9-11 and if some of it makes sense it is because there is some truth to it .
When people look back on history hind sight is 20-20 and we can see the truth clearly .
That we have been manipulated into wars before and this time is no different .
We all know Bush looked only for information that would allow him to go to war .
He had at the time almost no support for invading Iraq .
We lose sight of the fact that not many people object to Afghanistan because we pissed Bin ladin off by leaving him to hang in the wind after he and his troops faught the Russians for years with our help and then we turned on them .
So we do need to do the same thing with him as we do with all puppet leaders when we are done with them .
Kill them to silence the truth from coming out .
You will never be able to accept the truth and prefer to only accept what truth allows you to sleep at night .
Confronted with anything else and you would realize you are just another pawn .
And yes you are a pawn and playing your part just fine .
Some people just choose not to be pawns in this game .
2007-03-29 01:38:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by trouble maker 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
They can't respond to your question because the answer can't be found on Wikipedia or any of the conspiracy theory websites.
There's no such thing and no amount of evidence that would convince them. They misquote witnesses, manipulate information to suit them, and make up things to fill in the blanks.
They demand video of the Pentagon being hit, and discount the video of the WTC being hit. They only want to see video of the Pentagon being hit, so that they can discount it.
They dismiss the testimony of experts in their fields, because being an economist or a Bush hater means that you know more about physics and metal.
They feel like anyone who believes them is an "independent thinker", but anyone who doesn't is a "sheep". I don't know what's so "independent" about memorizing the bullsh*t that someone posted on their site.
2007-03-29 01:23:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The funny thing is that I don't think they ever really believe we have any enemies at all,
they believe it sometimes I guess when people chant 'death to America' after holding someone down and cutting off their head--but only if it's videotaped.
I think there is enough evidence to prove that American citizens had enemies before 9-11 and still do now,
If Islamic militants bombed the world trade center in '93 and they have hijacked planes before, taken hostages and killed innocent civilians before, why wouldn't they do it again?
2007-03-29 01:33:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
A cockroach, running across their dirty food infested carpet. I just had to get that in. No, for them a real attack is the slaughter of half of America. I wonder if they will get up off their butts then, and start fighting terrorism, or if they'll still wait until there is nothing left, and say, "Gee, what happened?"
2007-03-29 01:16:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by xenypoo 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I think the terrorist have waged a great media campaign against the west. It goes to show you what you can do with a smart marketing plan and a population of idiots.
2007-03-29 01:14:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
a real attacke to them would be somone personal and close to them getting killed .
2007-03-29 01:21:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋