The 9/11 Attacks and Views on the WTC 7 Collapse and the Pentagon Impact Zone

Discussion in 'Present & Current Events' started by Thomas R. Morrison, Sep 11, 2018.

  1. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    That could have used some editing, sorry. I get on a roll ...

    No, I don't buy the 'no planes' stuff.

    Don't think Bin Laden was an engineer, but Wiki tells is dad owned a construction company. He was no dummy and quite useful when killing Soviets. And yes, we killed him and buried his ass at sea. There are precedents for that sort of thing.

    I also remember that we - the US, the CIA - helped Iraq in some fashion against Iran despite them being a Soviet client state. After the Revolution Iran had no cause to love us nor we them after the hostage crisis, which I remember playing out on television. You would think that if Iraq had WMDs they might have used one or two beyond chemical weapons at some point - they displayed no great war winning prowess. Also remember the run up to Gulf 1 repeatedly stating that Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world. Slobodan Milošević found out the hard way that confronting NATO or the US as a nation state was probably not the best idea. Viewing war with Iraq as simply destroying a nation state and ending a problem was, to put it simply, a carpenter viewing every problem as a nail. We blew it up real good. Even with the experience of Vietnam under our belts the concept of protracted asymmetrical warfare hadn't sunk in sufficiently.

    Not sure it has now - many of the young men and women serving now were born after 9/11.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    19,448
    The former, indubitably, no question there, the latter - well, there is where I have an itch, precedents for a mass murderer?...Give him a respectful burial but never mind that he is also a mass murderer of thousands, began a worldwide terrorist movement, and carried out a huge attack on American soil, the likes America has not seen since Pearl Harbor...I do not understand the government's rational and reasoning, they should have brought him back to American soil...

    ...
     
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    19,448
    Wouldn't a better target be Iran then, going by that, since the US already bloodied the nose of Saddam's army in Kuwait, we look more like a bully going after him again, especially since Saddam has been Iran's direct adversary...In effect, Iran has been doing some dirty work indirectly by facing up against Iran...

    ...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    I suppose he had more value as a respectfully buried (Muslim) carcass than as an even greater object of martyrdom. Personally I'd like to think he's got a head full of MKUltra chemicals wearing a pinafore dress licking an all-day sucker in a black vault somewhere, but I think like Big Pussy Bonpensiero he sleeps with the fishes
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    Yes. Agreed. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As pure speculation at the time (and now) I said it was a matter of putting a large chunk of the US military where it was expected to be needed for future conflict and political advantage. Ironically enough it may have been viewed as a potential regional stabilizer. Iraq had been performing a service to us but that may have run its course after it could no longer sustain it's war with Iran. Plus they were a former Soviet client. After 9/11 Iraq was low hanging fruit and served a different purpose to those that engineered the invasion and may have been a case of 'strike while the iron is hot.' Maybe it was just the damned oil. Iran has a different culture and geography; they are Persians with physically larger country sharing a border with former Soviet states which might've been too politically touchy.

    History takes time to pass judgement, and eventually the s*** will come out in the wash.
     
  6. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    19,448
    I don't agree with the martyrdom consideration, are we to walk on eggshells for these terrorists after they down two big towers in New York City no less?...Aren't we Americans, yet the government is concerned about stepping on the toes of a few radicals?...When I say bring his body back here I don't mean we string him up and parade him around like I've seen 'radicals' do on the streets in some middle east countries...:Whistle:

    What I meant was I am sure there's hundreds of thousands of people who would like to to have seen his body in some form, images or in person, show the respect for humanity by laying him nice in a casket or something but show that we got him and give these people closure, those people and families of the victims deserve it more than he deserved that alleged burial at sea...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    Well, one of the historical precedents I mentioned is the Russians digging up Hitler's smouldering corpse for the same reason. Always imagined of Stalin keeping Adolph's jawbone in his desk drawer. Imaging wagging that at somebody to make your point ......

    I do agree with you though as a matter of preference. I would rather he had an end more like Mussolini or Gaddafi
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    main-qimg-1f30c0f6e8c00fa946cb8dad07c2a167-c.jpeg main-qimg-6477d359dc5432b1abcbe8f37b74a1fd-c.jpeg download (1).jpeg 54cfc8f47dd45_-_911-flight175windows-l.jpg 636089389037222861-A01-WTC3-02-28631779.jpeg
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Zeke

    Zeke Infrequent

    Messages:
    847
    At first I wasn't sure what @The shadow knew, but now I see - he knows how to dubunk most parts of the hard 9/11 conspiracy theory. A few more extreme versions the likes of John Lear's holographic planes and/or remote controlled versions exist even, to which I smh/face palm. He states these outlandish statements and fails to answer what happened to the planes, passengers, etc and all the other evidence for a more traditional explanation.

    Anyway so what you list above all points to a lighter version of the conspiracy theory which I've accepted - war criminals and neocon political establishment (people like Cheney, Bush Jr/Sr, Rumsfeld) were implicit in allowing these attacks to happen and for many of the reasons and motives you list above. Clinton/Obama somehow on board with the establishment as well particularly regarding Libya. There was no need for controlled demolition - and even if we are wrong in that regard - at the very minimum, we have accounts of some of hi-jackers being aided by the granting of passports/visas to travel here and training. There was active measures taken to make sure 9/11 is successful. And their implementation of the anything-but-patriotic "Patriot Act"? So who really are our enemies? Who's not on board with said establishment agenda? Libertarians i.e. Rand Paul/democratic socialist Bernie Sanders/wild card Trump?

    What made me consider controlled demolition theory was the discovery of the 1995 Oklahoma Bombing shady deaths and circumstances of bombs being found in the area and a second person with McVeigh coming out of the van (portions of video confiscated and not released to the public at the time). These CIA or internal covert military operations seem to have layers built in for guaranteed success. Jim Marrs Crossfire argues several shooters for example, of JFK (not one being Oswald). George H. W. Bush protected to this day for his key involvement.

    At what point does global security - all the death and destruction listed of innocent people, European invasion by refugees, stripping of American basic privacy rights, pumping unnatural chemicals into US soil for shale 'natural gas' to help control oil trade, suppression or blacklisting of UFO related and/or advanced alternative energy technology, and most importantly resulting in man-made factor for climate change (which includes the U.S.), pumping chemicals into the air or geoengineering to (partly) counter said climate change- override the #1 national security issue of propping up and maintaining value of the petrodollar?

    When they decided to tie USD with trade of oil and go off gold standard, they knew it would meet several key objectives by creating a mutually supporting system of military war mongering to protect the integrity of said petroUSD / paid for by said petroUSD/ place military in middle east to support or provide safety for Israel / expand U.S neocon dominance world-wide. All these objectives have been met (minus Putin's Russia and his subsequent protection of Syria and Iran). Now we see all the collateral damage - the planet heating up more than it would be naturally/ocean acidification from extra C2O absorption/extreme weather - Europe overrun by refugees - thousands of civilian and military Americans dead from false flag attacks.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
    • Like Like x 3
  10. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,329
    frankly i don't trust that terrorism propaganda either, you need to be on the conflict itself to know wich side is the good one
     
  11. Rikki

    Rikki High Priestess

    Messages:
    329
    My husband and I agree on most of the events of Sept 11th.
    However I have seen thermite was found in the WTC dust. I have asked my husband many times. I have yet to receive a good answer . Was thermite found? If so what is the significance to the destruction of WTC 1 and 2?





    Blessed Be
    Rikki
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,163
    That's a deeply disturbing finding. The official rebuttal to that, was simply to question the chain of custody - they suggested that the samples tested may have been contaminated. But when asked to check NIST's samples, which did have a clear chain of custody, they refused to test for nanothermite, which of course is highly suspicious. The other argument pertains to the difficulty of installing nanonthermite in the building, and the difficulty in keeping such an operation secret. I don't find those arguments to be convincing - operatives disguised as inspectors or contractors, which the correct paperwork for entry, could've pulled it off. And anyone sociopathic enough to perform such an operation wouldn't confess to it later because they'd be confessing to mass murder.

    Here's my issue though: even if the operation was conducted entirely by terrorists hijacking passenger planes with no "inside" help, the whole thing could've been orchestrated covertly by psychopathic war criminals like Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld working through the CIA and Saudi intelligence - the terrorists could've been set in motion and assisted by US intelligence without ever knowing that the US was involved.

    And the fact the the 9/11 attacks provided the military and intelligence agencies with exactly what they wanted and needed to A.) spawn a series of disastrous invasions all across the Mideast, B.) team up with Saudi Arabia to execute most of those military actions all across the Mideast, and C.) to deal lethal blows to our Constitutional protections via the Patriot Act and other traitorous legislation - all of that paints a powerful circumstantial case for US/Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

    But even if it was the most serendipitous event imaginable for the sociopathic neocons who control our government and military and intelligence agencies - that is, even if they had no involvement in the attacks at all - what they've done subsequently is 100% irrefutable proof that our military intelligence complex is totally out of control; not only willing but eager to lie to the public to justify increased US aggression abroad (the fake Iraqi WMD narrative, the false flag chemical attacks in Syria, and the fake RussiaGate narrative right now); perfectly content to slaughter hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people all across the Mideast; and perfectly willing to support terrorists like al-Qaeda in Syria right now in furtherance of our insane foreign policy objectives.

    So either way, complicit in 9/11 or not, we have a major problem on our hands, and it's only getting worse, not better.

    We need to put the brakes on our out-of-control military intelligence complex, and bring our troops back home where they belong. And we should devise a new kind of Marshall Plan to restore peace and stability to the region that we've devastated for the last 17 years, instead of manufacturing new reasons to destroy even more nations full of innocent people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    Agreed to a point but damned if you do and damned if you don't. Bringing our troops back home resulted in ISIS moving into the vacuum, a refugee crisis, civil war, and having to retake cities already paid for in blood. The world is not a nice place, in many cases due to our own actions, so what if we have another version of 9/11 perhaps on a greater scale? The hue and cry would be 'why weren't we protected?'

    Sorry, I believe that terrorist in planes took those buildings down, hit the Pentagon and would have done worse were it not for a self sacrificing few in PA.

    It would be nice to have a new Marshall plan but that worked in that particular context. Let's not forget - at a minimum - that at that time the largest most able and experienced army in the history of the world under the control of a brutal dictator was standing just to the east at that time hungering for more and held at arm's length only through concerted effort. I'm not anxious to see us back to nation building especially in a very different arena.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  14. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,163
    You skipped an important factor in that equation: we created the Islamic State by conducting an illegal war against Iraq based on fake intelligence assessments about WMDs. Then we expanded ISIS by; 1.) repeating the same mistake in Libya, and 2.) trying to do the same thing again in Syria.

    Our own military operations and our lying intelligence agencies are to blame for everything that’s happened since 9/11.

    But you’re right about one thing – we have to clean up the mess we’ve created before we can pull out, or the power vacuum will be filled by the terrorists. Thanks to neocon psychopaths like Hillary Clinton, Libya is now an Islamic State stronghold with human slave trading in public markets.

    Unfortunately, our military has proven to be the exact wrong solution to the problem. We created the problem and everything we’ve done has only expanded it.

    At this point we need to form an international coalition to restore peace and stability. The countries we’ve destroyed need to be occupied by an international peace-keeping force until the rule of law can be re-established. The Islamic State and al-Qaeda will need to be eradicated to make that happen, but we’re clearly the wrong ones to be calling the shots – instead of focusing on fighting the terrorists, we’ve allied with them to fight Assad. So we’re as bad as they are now. Somebody else needs to take over. Maybe the UN, I don’t know. An international coalition is required, and one without regime change agendas all across the Mideast.

    Once stability is restored, the immigration crisis will end and the refugees can move back home to rebuild. That’s what needs to happen. Preferably before our Syrian regime change operation triggers WWIII.

    I’m prepared to accept that narrative. But it doesn’t really matter anymore, does it? The 3,000 innocent Americans murdered that day is a modest number compared to the million+ innocent people that we’ve slaughtered in response.

    I’d rather see us actually rebuilding the nations that we’ve destroyed, than keep watching our insane wars expand.

    The current policy of endless regime change operations (aka, mass murder operations) has been a complete disaster in every respect. We’ve created far more terrorists than we started with. Millions of innocent families have been slaughtered and sent fleeing from their homes that we’re bombing nonstop in at least seven countries now. All of the people killed in terrorist attacks over the last fifteen years – at least 98% of that blood is on our hands.

    We need a complete change of leadership and strategy, because the US has done nothing but damage, turned the entire world against us, and burned through trillions of dollars in the process.

    It has to stop.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    Well, there we are in complete agreement.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. pepe

    pepe Celestial

    Messages:
    1,019
    Humanitarian reasoning is still and will always be paramount.

    Chemical weapons were used against the Kurds in Iraq. Also by the Syrian regime against the rebels.

    To think that these countries would welcome countries from the West to build them up is another mistake. They are five hundred years behind us in terms of civilisation. It would be seen as a take over and therefore even worse atrocities would arise.

    They are learning that the West won't sit on its hands and put up with genocide. All that can be done is to step in when this line is crossed. It's a lesson they will learn the hard way.

    Take away our recent interventions across the region. The fruit and veg guy from Tunisia would still have flashed himself up in protest and the trap would have sprung anyhow.

    Fate.
     
  17. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    19,448
    That's what needs to happen yes but we will not see this happen and certainly the migrants who went to Europe and still heading to Europe are not going to turn around back, there's a large percentage of them that did not originate from the war torn areas of the middle east...They came from countries in Africa and eastern countries taking advantage of the situation to gain entry into Europe...

    ...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. AD1184

    AD1184 Honorable

    Messages:
    453
    Certainly the war on Iraq in 2003 was a colossal foreign policy mistake, which laid the groundwork for much which has followed. The western enthusiasm for the Arab Spring uprising in 2011, which in many aspects contradicted recent foreign policy in the region, did for the rest. This was done without an adequate understanding of Arab countries and what the likely outcome would be.

    The pivotal event at that time was the western military intervention in the Libyan civil war, over inflated fears of impending atrocities following an expected Libyan government assault on the city of Benghazi, and without western understanding over just who we were backing. The biggest cheerleaders for this action were the British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Obama was said to be lukewarm on the idea, although the warmonger Hillary Clinton was an enthusiast (remember her disgusting and bloodthirsty reaction when the dictator Gadaffi was lawlessly murdered by a mob in the streets when he was finally ousted?).

    The collapse of the Libyan government opened up a channel for migration across the Mediterranean into southern Europe, and also likely caused Syrian unrest to turn into an outright civil war, with the rebels hoping for a similar western military intervention in that country (which thankfully has not yet happened, despite the ardent wishes of many in western governments and in the news media, although this threat has certainly not gone away, and may come to a head this autumn).

    I believe that the needless escalation of tensions with Russia, owing largely to post-Soviet NATO expansion, has largely been at the behest of US arms manufacturers. When Bill Clinton began the post-Cold War expansion of NATO in the 1990s, he did so under pressure from defence companies, and that does have some relation to the ongoing Middle East situation, with Russia on the opposite side to us. However, I do not think that a US government orchestration of the 9/11 terror attacks has anything to do with this.

    Theories about controlled demolition and thermite use in 9/11 are just fatuous nonsense. I have seen no adequate explanation as to why a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was desirable for any would-be conspirators, and they concoct the ridiculous idea of the most elaborate controlled demolition in history, some appealing to the completely unproven and seemingly bad idea of using thermite to achieve this end. Conspiracy theorists claim variously that explosive reports could be heard, and also that thermite was used to avoid the noise associated with high explosives.

    Thermite could potentially be used to bring down a building. However, if you use thermite, you will lose any ability to control the collapse, which requires split-second timing that can only be achieved with high-explosives. Thermitic reactions could have taken place in the burning Twin Towers in the official explanation. Thermite reactions take place when elemental aluminium reacts with, for example, iron oxide. Quantities of aircraft aluminium would have melted in the Twin Towers fires and this molten aluminium would likely have come into contact with oxidized steel members of the buildings' structures.

    Surely it would be much better to have the buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion, which is all that was necessary and also apparently what happened, to me and to most others.

    Furthermore, the 9/11 attacks were aimed squarely at the elite of American society: the Twin Towers, office blocks largely housing financial services firms and similar companies, and the Pentagon, a building housing US military top brass. If the orchestrators wanted a more guttural reaction of support against the apparent perpetrators of these acts from the American people, why did they not target the common man? It would have been no more difficult to have flown the hijacked aircraft into a packed sports stadium, for example.
     
  19. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,163
    That was in 1988, before the first Gulf War. There were no WMDs in Iraq after we won that war. The UN weapons inspectors consistently reported that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs before the second invasion of Iraq (the one where we destroyed the entire country) but the US press sided with GW Bush’s lying war criminals instead.

    Nope. All three of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria were first unanimously blamed on Assad by the entire corporate mews media propaganda establishment, and then subsequent analyses pointed to a strategic use of chemical weapons by the US-backed terrorists for the purpose of garnering public support for intensified regime change operations. But the second part was never reported in the mainstream media, of course.

    Then an international coalition should support peaceful Muslim nations in helping them rebuild the nations that we’ve laid to waste. Peace and prosperity is the right way to defeat terrorism.

    You seem to be suggesting that we just keep bombing these nations into oblivion. That insane and totally failed strategy has precipitated a 6500% increase in terrorism and a dramatic surge in terrorist fatalities:
    ScreenHunter_851 Sep. 19 15.00.jpg
    Terrorism

    That’s an absurd statement. Iraq was a thriving modern civilization before we completely destroyed it and turned it into a seething ISIS-infested hellscape. So was Libya. In fact Libya was a beacon of success and opportunity for the entire continent of Africa, which drew in millions of African citizens looking for a better life. When we destroyed Libya, they had no place left to go but Europe.

    It’s hard to imagine worse atrocities than we’re seeing right now with the Islamic State running huge swaths of territory and open human slave trafficking markets – all courtesy of the disastrous warmongering US foreign policy.

    You mean, while we’re committing it.

    The “War of Terror,” I mean “The War on Terror,” has racked up a body count of over 5 million people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. That's nearing Holocaust levels of genocide.
    How Many Millions Have Been Killed in America’s Post-9/11 Wars? Part 3: Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen

    So a handful of mostly Saudi terrorists killed 3,000 Americans, and we’ve killed millions of civilians in retaliation. And you’re cool with that. Chilling.

    That’s not even intelligible. If you’re referring to the Arab Spring, that was a covert CIA/Saudi operation:

    “WASHINGTON — Even as the United States poured billions of dollars into foreign military programs and anti-terrorism campaigns, a small core of American government-financed organizations were ‘promoting democracy’ [quotation marks mine] in authoritarian Arab states.

    The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon. But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.”
    U.S.-Financed Groups Had Supporting Role in Arab Uprisings

    I don’t know what you mean by “a large percentage of them,” but 5.6 million refugees have fled Syria alone, thanks to our illegal regime change operation there:
    European migrant crisis - Wikipedia

    And like I said, Libya used to be the preferred destination for African refugees. We uncorked that bottle when we destroyed Libya.

    And I think that most refugees would rather be back home than struggling to survive in distant lands that are overwhelmed with the refugee crisis, and which are intrinsically hostile to their cultures and don’t speak their languages.

    That was only a “civil war” in the sense of the Syria “civil war” – US/Saudi intelligence arming terrorists to overthrow the existing government while the corporate news media propaganda outlets call it a “civil war” and refer to jihadist terrorists as "rebels."

    We knew exactly who we were backing. The CIA renditioned Abdelhakim Belhadj, a known Taliban terrorist, a decade before we backed his militia in the overthrow of Qaddafi, so it was no surprise when he joined the Islamic State after the CIA/Saudi coup:

    CIA worked with Libya in terror suspect renditions, documents show

    CIA Asset Joins Islamic State in Libya – Abdelhakim Belhadj Worked with U.S. and NATO to Overthrow Gaddafi
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-asset-joins-islamic-state-in-libya-abdelhakim-belhadj-worked-with-u-s-and-nato-to-overthrow-gaddafi - /5434923

    Yeah Hillary Clinton is one of the most bloodthirsty neocons warmongers in US history, who touts the endorsements of war criminals like Henry Kissinger and John Negroponte. How anyone can believe that she’s left-wing in any sense totally baffles me. Reports indicate that she was the loudest voice in the room pushing Obama to bomb Libya.

    Yep.

    Actually we stole Qaddafi’s munitions and routed them through a rat line via Turkey to Syria, where those weapons were given to jihadist terrorists (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Islamic State) to overthrow Assad.

    They’re not “rebels,” they’re US-backed terrorist mercenaries. Most of them aren’t even Syrian. And they’ve used chemical weapons three times, presumably with the assistance of the CIA and Turkey, in false flag operation to get the US more directly involved in the war. When Obama realized that the first chemical attack in Syria was a false flag operation to force him to send troops into Syria, he back-pedaled and put it up for a Congressional vote. That’s why we didn’t fully commit like we did in Iraq and Libya.

    Boom. Yep – that’s what political campaign donations buy: war profits. But the bankers may be even more central to all of this – every nation that has threatened the Petrodollar has either been destroyed, or is currently the focus of media hate campaigns with the intent to garner public support for military action against them.

    Maybe not, but I don’t rule out the possibility: our war machine and the heads of our intelligence agencies are complete psychopaths. People who are capable of intentionally lying in order to start wars are capable of anything.

    The samples tested did have nanothermite, a military-grade variety of thermite, so that’s suspicious as hell. And NIST has refused to test their samples which have proper chain of custody, which is also suspicious as hell. We don’t have airtight proof, but what we do have is far from “fatuous nonsense.” We have credible suspicion.

    It appears to be a viable theory; nanothermite would have the explosive properties required for symmetric demolition:
    World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

    I don’t think you can argue the key point: it worked. Americans saw it as an attack on America, not an attack on the American elite class.

    Most people never questioned any of the insane wars that we started as a result of those attacks, or the expansion of those wars all across the Mideast over the last 15 years. If that was the point (and I’m not saying that it was, because it can’t be proven), then it worked perfectly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page