was 9/11 planned just to get into iraq for oil?

Answer 1

Iraq was in the works immediately after Bush took office, with Afghanistan shortly after (that summer) but it wasn't until 9/11that they had the pretext to do either. That in and of itself is suspicious. Popular Mechanics debunking 9/11 conspiracies? That's a good one. Read David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking and see how shoddy and error/omission-riddled that piece of garbage is. You always see that hack James Meigs from PM paraded out as an expert, when his qualifications are being the former editor of an entertainment magazine. If you think only uneducated "conspiracy theorists" question 9/11, you are either stupid or in denial. People much smarter than you or I have taken this position, including hundreds of engineers, architects, scientists, high level military and intelligence officials to name a few. Some pimply face conspiracy buff or a hack like Rosie O'Donnel is easy to attack, but I'd like to see some of you mental midgets challenge some of these people to a debate about 9/11.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Answer 2

Of course not.

The immediate result of 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan, which has no oil.

The invasion of Iraq, which occurred because we we're looking for weapons of mass destruction, did not "get us" any oil, nor will it ever. There is no way we can "take" oil from Iraq; that would be simple stealing.
=========================
A few more points show why 9/11 was not an “inside job”:

1. Popular Mechanics is an excellent collection of opinions of famous experts. That's why it's so powerful.

There is absolutely no claim that the eitors are experts

The only way Pop Mechanics can be wrong is if they either misquoted the experts or the experts are wrong. Not very likely.

Example:

Pop Mechanics says that Professor Bazant (Northwestern Dept of Civil Engineering) is one of only 14 people to win the Prager Award in engineering.

He first described the collapse mechanism as follows: http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

This article says the towers collapsed from jets alone (impact & fire). There is zero need to have “thermite” or “bombs.”

If Pop Mechanics is a liar, then what part of this is a lie?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

2. Essentially every single expert (in civil engineering & demolition), who has published a journal article on 9-11, has rejected the so-called conspiracy “science.” It’s really amazing. There isn’t an article on the face of the earth (in a real journal) that supports the conspiracy.

Answer 3

The planning and trial runs started during the Clinton Administration. Are you saying that Bill Clinton planned 9/11?

Answer 4

Please refer to the 9/11 report which was clearly stated.

Someone may say it was Bush's made-up, some would say it is Bill Clinton's mistake; some would point to Muslim etc.

It should be American sloppy. Good for a period of time and everyone thought it is save to to do any thing. Just like Noah's day.

Everyone should learn from the "mad-eye" in Harry Potter. Always keep watching, esp. yourself.

Answer 5

No, Sean, of course not. Popular Mechanics debunked the 9/11 conspiracy. Look it up on the 'net.

Answer 6

I want to believe it wasn't, and that the insurgents rigged the building with dynamite so it would go straight down...but with Bush & Cheney who are in oil business with Osada Ben Laden family......(Halliburton Group)anything is possible.

Answer 7

there not that bright to master off something like 9/11

Answer 8

I doubt that thought ever crossed bin Laden's mind.

Answer 9

peapie- who loaded the building with dynamite for demolition- how would anyone be able to do that and no one noticed, much less supporting columns would need to be removed

Answer 10

You've gotta be kidding. You should do some research before you ask a question like this. It'll save you some embarassment in the future......