Do you think OBL is responsible for 9/11?

[Topaz]

You may think that is a stupid question since the CIA has come out and said it was OBL who did it BUT if you check the FBI most wanted list , OBL is there, BUT is wanted for terrorism OUTSIDE the US. The bombing of the US embassy overseas. I just finished reading an article that said the CIA created a "fake" OBL with the help of their friends in the Middle-East. The more I read, the more I'm beginning to think that there a lot more about 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. I know the CIA is a powerful unit and with the right or wrong President, the CIA has done alot of illegal things in the past. I also, found that some of the 19 highjackers, one died even before 9/11 happen and others were not even in the US. THe ones inside the US did so by the CIA help. So... could this have been done by another country and blamed on OBL? Who benfitted from 9/11? The US govt is not answering alot of questions and there is more to this than they are willing to say.

[August1991]

Topaz, this is the second time you have started a thread in the wrong category. This thread should rightly be in the category "Rest of the World". "Federal Politics" is reserved for Canadian issues.

[jbg]

Topaz, this is the second time you have started a thread in the wrong category. This thread should rightly be in the category "Rest of the World". "Federal Politics" is reserved for Canadian issues.

I thought maybe in "weird news".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What are you suggesting Topaz? That the CIA did the deed? Do you really believe that they would murder their own citizens?

[Rue]

I am not big on conspiracy theories but here's some wierd stuff I read. The weekend before the 9-11 attacks, all the elevator systems were shut down in the twin towers for maintenance. Here's another wierd thing, George Bush's cousin was in charge of security for the towers. I also personally have read a lot of engineering reports that personally make me question whether the heat of the jets impacting into the buildings by themselves was capable of bringing down the buildings. The more I read, the more I believed the buildings were brought down by controlled detenations placed up and down elevator shafts at strategic positions and the bombs went off after the jet impacts.

Do I think the CIA did it? Well I have read all kinds of conspiracy and illuminati theories. I personally have a hard time believing Bush would order the murder of 5,000 Americans. I may not agree with a lot of what he does and I may think he is a dummy but that I can not fathom.

I am more inclined to believe that terrorists in addition to the jet impacts also infiltrated the buildings and planted well placed bombs and the US government has covered up this part of it for two reasons; i-it would show how vulnerable the US is to future similiar attacks; ii-Bush and the government quickly cleared up his family connection to the security firm that blew it.

How many of you have read that George Bush's cousin and Uncle were owners of the Security company in charge of the Towers? The Press certainly didn't run with it.

That said, I think there has been a cover-up but a cover-up to hide all the mistakes the US government made before and after the attacks and not for any other reasons.

Then again will we ever know the real truth, I doubt it. Although I will let you in on this secret, Jackie Gleason did get to see UFO's retrieved and kept in US Air Foce hangars!

[jdobbin]

I guess if most of the Muslim world can believe that no Muslim extremist was involved in the attacks, then North Americans can believe it too.

Given that the Bush administration can barely keep a leak from any part of its operations from from making the New York Times, it seems unlikely that they could keep one where Bush planned and executed an attack on the World Trade Center.

[GostHacked]

I am not big on conspiracy theories but here's some wierd stuff I read. The weekend before the 9-11 attacks, all the elevator systems were shut down in the twin towers for maintenance. Here's another wierd thing, George Bush's cousin was in charge of security for the towers. I also personally have read a lot of engineering reports that personally make me question whether the heat of the jets impacting into the buildings by themselves was capable of bringing down the buildings. The more I read, the more I believed the buildings were brought down by controlled detenations placed up and down elevator shafts at strategic positions and the bombs went off after the jet impacts.

Do I think the CIA did it? Well I have read all kinds of conspiracy and illuminati theories. I personally have a hard time believing Bush would order the murder of 5,000 Americans. I may not agree with a lot of what he does and I may think he is a dummy but that I can not fathom.

I am more inclined to believe that terrorists in addition to the jet impacts also infiltrated the buildings and planted well placed bombs and the US government has covered up this part of it for two reasons; i-it would show how vulnerable the US is to future similiar attacks; ii-Bush and the government quickly cleared up his family connection to the security firm that blew it.

How many of you have read that George Bush's cousin and Uncle were owners of the Security company in charge of the Towers? The Press certainly didn't run with it.

That said, I think there has been a cover-up but a cover-up to hide all the mistakes the US government made before and after the attacks and not for any other reasons.

Then again will we ever know the real truth, I doubt it. Although I will let you in on this secret, Jackie Gleason did get to see UFO's retrieved and kept in US Air Foce hangars!

It's something I have been looking at for about the past year now. I really think something was allowed to happen if not taking part in it. The attacks were known, Israel, Germany, France all had reports that they had warnings of the attacks and had let the US intelligence serivces know. There are consitancies among the so called 'conspiracies' and that seems to validate and throw more truth behind them. I personally think something really really shady went on.

The former head of the FBI John O'Neill had been trying to warn of the attacks himself. He end up leaving the FBI (two weeks before 9/11) and got hired on as the new head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the attacks.

But to say OBL did it?? Even the FBI website do not even say that OBL was responsible for 9/11. My theory, is that 9/11 was allowed to happen in order to get support for a new war. Afghanistan/Iraq War on Terror. Who knew about the attacks?? I have no clue yet. I also find it strange that the PATRIOT act was passed only a couple months after 9/11, so that it must have been a work in progress for about 2 years.

How far down that rabbit hole do you want to go? It gets even stranger the more I dig into this.

Also on Sept 10 2001, Rumsfeld had a press conference where they said they were going to crack down on defence spending and the budget, something along the lines of them not being able to account for 2.3 trillion dollars (about 25% of the total budget but not sure of the time frame for that budget).

I got more for you if you want

[Charles Anthony]

How many of you have read that George Bush's cousin and Uncle were owners of the Security company in charge of the Towers? The Press certainly didn't run with it.

I have read it and more people will too eventually.

That said, I think there has been a cover-up but a cover-up to hide all the mistakes the US government made before and after the attacks and not for any other reasons.

That cover-up must have cost a load of money. Nobody spends money unless they will make money.

When there is no more money to be made, cover-ups usually are handled brutally but simply, for example: with concrete shoes.

[Michael Hardner]

Gost,

My theory, is that 9/11 was allowed to happen in order to get support for a new war.

That's somewhat akin to burning down your restaurant in the hopes that the new rebuilt one will be twice as popular. Far too risky.

Rue,

Here's another wierd thing, George Bush's cousin was in charge of security for the towers.

How many of you have read that George Bush's cousin and Uncle were owners of the Security company in charge of the Towers? The Press certainly didn't run with it.

The press didn't run with it because IT'S NOT TRUE. GWB's cousin sat on the board of directors of a company that provided security systems to the WTC and left the board a year before 9/11. This is so far a stretch from saying that he 'ran security' or somesuch as to be a lie.

The same crowing voices that decry the lying and cover-ups that supposedly happen have absolutely NO QUALMS about doing those things themselves. These tactics include slandering good people, accusing people whom they don't know of murder and cover-up and making fun of victims of 9/11.

Left-of-centre voters need to speak up about the 9/11 conspiracy types as they are a pox on the house.

[FTA Lawyer]

I also personally have read a lot of engineering reports that personally make me question whether the heat of the jets impacting into the buildings by themselves was capable of bringing down the buildings. The more I read, the more I believed the buildings were brought down by controlled detenations placed up and down elevator shafts at strategic positions and the bombs went off after the jet impacts.

If you have trouble believing that crashing a 767 into a skyscraper can bring it down without the assistance of strategically placed explosive devices then how can you so easily believe there is a big government conspiracy over 9/11?

Seriously, take a look at the specs:

Boeing 767

An object of up to 450,000 lbs travelling at up to 530 mph carrying up to 23,980 gallons (U.S.) of highly combustible fuel...

I'd like to see some of these "engineering reports" that question whether the plane crashes could have independently brought down the buildings.

FTA

[Michael Hardner]

I'd like to see some of these "engineering reports" that question whether the plane crashes could have independently brought down the buildings.

There are hardly any acredited engineers that subscribe to the theory that the planes didn't bring the buildings down. The most famous report, quoted early on, was written by an economist I believe.

[Charles Anthony]

I would like to see the engineering reports that insist that a World Trade Center tower can collapse SOLELY as a result of fire in the AFTERNOON of September 11, 2001 and WITHOUT ever being hit by a plane.

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/collapse.html

[Michael Hardner]

Charles,

You are correct in that no one is exactly sure why that building fell. But some things will necessarily remain unexplained. If there's a sensible conspiracy theory as to how this whole plan unfolded so that someone could pull down that particular building I have yet to hear it.

[gc1765]

I am more inclined to believe that terrorists in addition to the jet impacts also infiltrated the buildings and planted well placed bombs and the US government has covered up this part of it for two reasons; i-it would show how vulnerable the US is to future similiar attacks; ii-Bush and the government quickly cleared up his family connection to the security firm that blew it.

If terrorists brought the buildings down using bombs, then why fly the jets into the buildings?

Also, why did it take so long for the buildings to collapse?

[Charles Anthony]

If terrorists brought the buildings down using bombs, then why fly the jets into the buildings?

To make the shock and awe consistent.

It may have been impossible to infiltrate the security of the Pentagon to plant bombs. The terrorists probably said: "The only way we can attack the Pentagon is from the air. Therefore, lets attack each target the same way: from the air." They must have needed the World Trade Center towers to be demolished but just wanted an attack on the Pentagon.

Also, why did it take so long for the buildings to collapse?

Are you kidding??

It took less than 10 seconds for Tower 7 to fall in its footprint.

I think a better question to ask is: why were the remains of the towers so quickly disposed?

In the greater context of the flawless execution of the attacks and the continued success of keeping Americans (and us for that matter!) completely confused, asking why they needed to fly airplanes and the timing of the collapse is trivial. It is like discussing what caliber of bullet fatally killed JFK.

[newbie]

Go here for more:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/vi...pic.php?t=46053

[gc1765]

Are you kidding??

It took less than 10 seconds for Tower 7 to fall in its footprint.

I meant why was it so long after they were hit that they collapsed, which took about 1-2 hours. If the building was imploded with explosives, wouldn't it have collapsed immediately?

Link

[Michael Hardner]

Q:If terrorists brought the buildings down using bombs, then why fly the jets into the buildings?

A:To make the shock and awe consistent.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Why would they complicate their plan, and multiply the risk so much just to make a 'consistent' attack ? It's even more absurd if the assertion is that ONLY WTC 7 was demolished by explosion.

[Charles Anthony]

Q:If terrorists brought the buildings down using bombs, then why fly the jets into the buildings?

A:To make the shock and awe consistent.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Why would they complicate their plan, and multiply the risk so much just to make a 'consistent' attack ? It's even more absurd if the assertion is that ONLY WTC 7 was demolished by explosion.

First, it was a wild guess.

That is the point. After five years, we are all still guessing.

Second, keep in mind that this has never been done before.

Maybe the terrorists were not sure either of what would happen.

Maybe they thought that the impact would make the buildings topple all over the city and destroy other buildings.

Maybe they rigged up the explosives as a back-up just in case the buildings did not fall as hoped (that would explain the delay).

Maybe they rigged up the explosives as a back-up just in case the planes got diverted.

Maybe they wanted us to feel small, compared to the rest of the world.

Maybe they were trigger happy.

Maybe they enjoyed the chase as much as the kill.

Maybe Zacarias Moussaoui knows the answer.

Maybe the terrorists wanted the western world to feel terrorized.

Forgive me, but I will boldly say that in the grand scheme of things, questioning why they would make it complicated is beyond ridiculous because they managed with unparalleled success.

Complicated in our eyes was in the palm of the hands of the terrorists.

They could have flown pirouettes around the towers if they wanted.

Whoever the mastermind was behind the attacks, "complicated" does not seem like an obstacle.

[Michael Hardner]

First, it was a wild guess.

That is the point. After five years, we are all still guessing.

Second, keep in mind that this has never been done before.

Maybe the terrorists were not sure either of what would happen.

Maybe they thought that the impact would make the buildings topple all over the city and destroy other buildings.

Maybe they rigged up the explosives as a back-up just in case the buildings did not fall as hoped (that would explain the delay).

Maybe they rigged up the explosives as a back-up just in case the planes got diverted.

Maybe they wanted us to feel small, compared to the rest of the world.

Maybe they were trigger happy.

Maybe they enjoyed the chase as much as the kill.

Maybe Zacarias Moussaoui knows the answer.

Maybe the terrorists wanted the western world to feel terrorized.

Or maybe the buildings fell due to some unknown reason such as damage from falling debris.

Forgive me, but I will boldly say that in the grand scheme of things, questioning why they would make it complicated is beyond ridiculous because they managed with unparalleled success.

Complicated in our eyes was in the palm of the hands of the terrorists.

They could have flown pirouettes around the towers if they wanted.

No, they couldn't, as they weren't skilled pilots.

Whoever the mastermind was behind the attacks, "complicated" does not seem like an obstacle.

To the contrary, the plots succeeded because they were so simple. All they required was a handful of people, and knowledge of the protocols and customs of American airspace security. The lynchpin in the plan was the fact that it was a longstanding practice to wait hijackers out until their demands were heard. They realized then that any hijacker could use a plane as a weapon. All they needed to do was get the planes.

Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ? They would need to start working on that months or years ahead of time in order to get familliar with the setups in these buildings. They would need to secure explosive materials whose movements are monitored by authorities, or otherwise smuggle them in. Each of these steps would have a risk of discovery associated with it.

Sometimes there's a mundane explanation for something, but we just don't have access to it, so everything appears mysterious. Do you remember the Bermuda Triangle mystery ? It's the same thing here, except that the proponents malign real people in perpetuating the myth.

[Charles Anthony]

Or maybe the buildings fell due to some unknown reason such as damage from falling debris.

Tower 7 was a controlled and well-planned demolition.

No, they couldn't, as they weren't skilled pilots.

Hence, the need for explosives.

All they needed to do was get the planes.

You are not serious.

Are you denying that Tower 7 was rigged and detonated?

Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ?

That is exactly what happened in Tower 7.

If they could bypass everything that is "complicated" and demolish Tower 7 in less than 10 seconds, surely it is possible to have rigged the Twin Towers.

It's the same thing here, except that the proponents malign real people in perpetuating the myth.

I disagree. I think it is quite the opposite.

Can you look at the falling of Tower 7 and say that it was not detonated?

Can you explain why the debris from the Twin Towers was so quickly disposed without forensic investigation at all?

[Michael Hardner]

Tower 7 was a controlled and well-planned demolition.

Again, this explanation seems to be offered more out of a lack of other explanations. As I pointed out above, it would add very little to the existing plan at great risk to blow up a single, much smaller building.

The idea that this was the 'cherry on the desert' of terror for that awful day, that the day wouldn't have been terrifying enough without WTC 7's collapse is completely ridiculous.

Were you calm and unimpressed until that building collapsed ? I wasn't.

Hence, the need for explosives.

They were skilled enough to hit the highest skyscrapers in NYC, yes.

You are not serious.

Are you denying that Tower 7 was rigged and detonated?

I have already explained why there couldn't be a motive to carry out such an act. I don't think WTC 7 was demolished, no. If you have evidence to the contrary, you may present it but 'there's no other explanation' isn't an explanation.

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Jul 18 2006, 09:02 AM) *

Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ?

That is exactly what happened in Tower 7.

You're evading the question. The answer is that it would be many, many times more complicated.

If they could bypass everything that is "complicated" and demolish Tower 7 in less than 10 seconds, surely it is possible to have rigged the Twin Towers.

I see. So the twin towers were rigged as well. That operation would be many times more complicated, even, than rigging tower 7.

Can you look at the falling of Tower 7 and say that it was not detonated?

I haven't got enough experience in watching detonated buildings fall, but I guess my answer would be yes.

Can you explain why the debris from the Twin Towers was so quickly disposed without forensic investigation at all?

There were investigations done. What kind of forensic investigation do you refer to ? FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers looked into the collapse and examined the damage on site, and at the landfill site to which the remnants were carried.

[Charles Anthony]

I have already explained why there couldn't be a motive to carry out such an act.

Where did you explain that?

If you have evidence to the contrary, you may present it but 'there's no other explanation' isn't an explanation.

Follow the links for more references.

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Jul 18 2006, 01:16 PM) *

I have already explained why there couldn't be a motive to carry out such an act.

Where did you explain that?

Here for one:

"Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ? They would need to start working on that months or years ahead of time in order to get familliar with the setups in these buildings. They would need to secure explosive materials whose movements are monitored by authorities, or otherwise smuggle them in. Each of these steps would have a risk of discovery associated with it."

And on other posts in other threads, and in my last post.

I followed the links, and all there is there is coincidence. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors to a company that supplied security systems to WTC. So what ? George Bush Sr. was director of the CIA, too. There are likely dozens of more links between the Bush family and what happened that day. Does this mean that GWB knew about 9/11 ? Of course not.

[Charles Anthony]

This:

"Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ? They would need to start working on that months or years ahead of time in order to get familliar with the setups in these buildings. They would need to secure explosive materials whose movements are monitored by authorities, or otherwise smuggle them in. Each of these steps would have a risk of discovery associated with it."

does not address motive.