Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Please refrain from copy and pasting messages over and over and over, or you will be removed from the forum. We all have input to make so let's keep this at a discussion and not a text block of commercials. Here are some helpful guidelines for good discussion and debate recommended by one of our members:

  • * Stay on topic
  • * Be clear
  • * Build upon your points and address those of other people
  • * Refrain from making assumptions about others' unstated views
  • * If you disagree with somebody, do so politely
  • * Clarify your terms and seek to understand others' (but avoid semantic derails)
Note: The opinions expressed by the moderators and members of this discussion board do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Occupy Together or Occupy Wall St. In the spirit of free information, open discussion, and the freedom of expression, members are able to speak about issues relating and directly pertaining to the Occupy movement. You will be banned for hate speech or intentional misinformation and please refrain from any violent rhetoric; this is a peaceful movement. Thank you.
The Corbett Report Summation of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
  • Brutal_Truth October 2011 +1 -1
    The following are some of the issues that one has to completely disregard and pretend don't exist in order to continue to have faith in the 9/11 official myth:

    1.) The alleged "hijacker pilots" had no experience whatsoever in flying anything with jet engines and had proven consistently that they were quite incompetent in even flying small propellor engine planes. That they could allegedly jump in the cockpits of jet airliners and fly them like experts strains credulity far past the breaking point.

    2.) The alleged "hijackers" were to an individual so un-Islamic that they drank liquor heavily, snorted cocaine, ate pork, went to strip bars where they got lapdances, rented prostitutes and gambled in Vegas. That they would then be so allegedly devoted to Islam as to be willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion and take some "infidels" with them is laughable.

    3.) Several "hijackers" turned up alive and well days later and demanded an explanation as to why their names and photos were being used in connection to the 9/11 story, as reported by the BBC. Nevertheless the American corporate-owned news media still continues with its same "nineteen hijackers" nonsense as if this didn't occur.

    4.) Several "hijackers" lived in military base housing, one had attended the Defense Language Institute at Monterey, California, several others lived just outside the gates of the N.S.A. in Laurel, Maryland, others lived in close proximity to C.I.A. headquarters and still others lived with an F.B.I. informant. Sound like "Islamic radical hijackers"? Or C.I.A. asset patsies who thought they were in training to be C.I.A. drug smuggling pilots?

    5.) None of the airline pilots from the alleged four airliners in question entered the simple four-digit code that sends the message "Hey, I'm being hijacked". Not one.

    6.) The Pentagon was struck in the one wedge that was under renovation at the time meaning comparatively few military personnel were present that morning there instead of the other four wedges. And the one wedge that was struck had recently been structurally reinforced to make it more difficult for a massive fire there to spread elsewhere. And it was the farthest point in the building from Rumsfeld's office. And consider: If one intends to crash into the Pentagon and do the most damage possible one would fly the plane down into the roof, not zoom around and fly just above the ground to strike it in the outside wall. Not to mention that it would be infinitely easier to hit the roof. So wasn't it nice of the "hijacker terrorists" to go out of their way to make sure that when they hit the Pentagon they did so in a way that would inflict the least amount of damage and death possible? So they were humanitarian terrorists then?

    7.) The "airliner" that crashed into the Pentagon left no wings, no fuselage, no tail section, no luggage etc. on the Pentagon's lawn and the official story literally tells us that the wings folded alongside the fuselage and the whole plane was sucked into the building, then all 255,000 lbs. of airplane vaporized. Yeah.

    8.) The "airliner" that crashed near Shanksville in Pennsylvania also vaporized itself into nothingness, just a crater in the ground. But wouldn't you know it, even though a great big airliner vanished into thin air they were still able to "find" a "hijacker's" passport, youth hostel card and a bandana in pristine condition? Just like the "hijacker's" passport "found" days after 9/11 near Ground Zero. Wow they should make airplanes and buildings out of paper and plastic so as to be as indestructable as those convenient passports, right?

    9.) The N.I.S.T. and 9/11 whitewash Commission both admitted that the Twin Towers, once the "collapses" started, came down at freefall rate in air. Meaning they expect you to believe that all that solid concrete and steel underneath the uppermost falling mass offered no more resistance to said mass than air. This is preposterous in the real world unless one is talking about controlled demolitions using explosive charges, a common sense issue considering when one thinks about it one quickly realizes that something (i.e. explosives) had to have reduced the solid majority of skyscraper to such a state that it is unable to offer any more resistance than air. Common sense OK? Solid things in the real world offer many magnitudes more resistance than air unless one disintegrates them with explosive charges. Which would explain the numerous eyewitness accounts of first responders who said they saw, heard and felt explosions, some even being blown down by the overpressure wave. It would also explain the "collapse" of WTC # 7 building which came down later that day immediately after two parallel lines of puffs of smoke went up the face of the building. Wonder what that was. Maybe demolition charges? Ya think?

    10.) The most expensive and technologically advanced air force the world has ever seen was no more effective that morning, the most important morning of its existence, than if they had been flying ancient biplanes. Part of the reason is that most of the fighter planes in the northeast U.S. had been conveniently sent to Alaska for military exercises scheduled for the morning of 9/11 so they would be far out of the way. (What a strange coincidence, right?) Others that remained were scrambled to intercept with no ammo for their guns and no missiles and instead of being flown straight to Manhattan were flown by a circuitous route taking them out over the Atlantic and eventually to New York. But if it was incompetence then why was the highest ranking Air Force officer, Gen. Richard Myers who was then the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not fired or court martialed? Instead, a month after 9/11, he was PROMOTED to full chairman.

    11.) In the week just before 9/11 there were record amounts of "put" options placed on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and several companies based in the WTC. Put options are basically betting that a certain stock is going to plummet in value. Was someone just a really really really good guesser?

    12.) The mayor of San Francisco at the time, Willie Brown, was warned in advance to not fly on September 11, 2001 and to avoid the World Trade Center in New York. More psychics at work I guess.

    13.) When Bush was in Booker Elementary that morning and was told by Andy Card that "America is under attack by terrorists" then instead of being allowed to remain in that school for over a half hour, even giving a short press conference on its front steps (!), Bush's Secret Service agents SHOULD have immediately whisked him away to a much safer location. Were the official myth of 9/11 true then letting him remain there would have been putting Bush's life at risk, their own lives at risk as well as all those schoolkids. So they would have had to know that Bush wasn't even a possible target that morning, something they would have absolutely no way of even guessing about if 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

    14.) Bush had war plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk ready to be signed two days before 9/11, even though it would have been politically impossible for the U.S. to have launched the invasion of Afghanistan WITHOUT a 9/11 event. So, is Bush clairvoyent? Or was 9/11 an inside job?

    15.) Bush and Cheney stonewalled against allowing a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed for over a year, only relenting when they were allowed to dictate its scope (no going beyond the official "nineteen hijackers" myth), handpick the commission members (all with vested financial interests in keeping the truth under wraps) and dictate the terms by which they themselves would appear before it, namely behind closed doors, with Bush and Cheney together so their stories can't be contrasted, with their attorneys present, NOT under oath, with no recordings made and no notes allowed to be kept. Now does this sound like the actions of two men with nothing to hide?


    These and other bits of evidence all point to one inescapable conclusion: The official story of 9/11 is an impossible myth and by extension the ones forcing this myth down America's throat are the ones responsible. Ignoring it won't change this, it will only make it that much more likely that if there is another false flag attack Americans will again be a dupe and fall for it.
  • papers October 2011 +1 -1
    (wiggles fingers)

    Thanks, Brutal_Truth. Anyone interested would do well to have a look at two very levelheaded documentaries on the subject: "Zero 9/11" and "Blueprint for Truth".

    It doesn't take reptillians or an "inside job" to completely bollox the official 9/11 narrative.
  • Brutal_Truth October 2011 +1 -1
    Papers, I didn't say anything about reptilians but 9/11 clearly had to have been an inside job. Not even the "let it happen on purpose" theory is able to explain the numerous impossibilities with the nineteen hijackers meme as it stumbles over almost all of the same hurdles as the official mythology.
  • Brutal_Truth October 2011 +1 -1
    Before anyone asks that inevitable next question, "So why would elements within the U.S. government do that?", I'll be more than happy to provide the detailed answers. There were several reasons, one of them being to provide an excuse for mainstreaming police state tactics, something the elite apparently feels will be necessary to clamp down on dissent as capitalism's victims increasingly start to gain political consciousness and revolt against their slavery. But the main reason was something else. The biggest reason for the 9/11 false flag attack was to provide the perfect pretext for launching a series of wars with the end goal being to secure as much control as possible over as much of the world's remaining energy resources as possible, much in the same way as the Third Reich rigged up a fake attack against a German radio station in Gleiwitz, Germany in late August 1939 and blamed it on Poles, to provide the excuse for the pre-planned invasion of Poland.

    Back in September 2000 the neo-con think tank called the Project for the New American Century (P.N.A.C.) released its thesis paper called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" in which they call for vastly increased military spending, a greatly expanded military and a much more aggressive U.S. foreign policy but lament that none of this is possible without some "large, catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor". A few months after this when Bush-Cheney "won" the 2000 election the top leaders of the P.N.A.C. would be ensconced in high places in the new Bush administration such as Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld. A few months after that and they would have their "new Pearl Harbor" event, their ready-made excuse for everything they've done since.

    The U.S. government was in negotiations with the Taliban government of Afghanistan in the hopes that it would allow a natural gas pipeline to be built from Turkmenistan's rich gas fields, across Afghan territory to Pakistan and an L.N.G. port. Everyone was on board except the Taliban. After trying to bribe them with increased aid money
    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
    and trying to threaten them
    http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html
    didn't work they resorted to their 9/11 false flag "terrorist" attack to give them the excuse to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban government and emplace their own puppet government under Hamid Karzai. Lo and behold, soon after Karzai is emplaced in Kabul he unsurprisingly agrees to the U.S. terms for the pipeline project.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

    Unfortunately for them they never have been able to pacify Afghanistan enough to build the pipeline but it was most certainly their main motive for invading the country, to be able to build a gas pipeline to get central Asian gas to market by a route that bypasses Russia and Iran. (Additional motives are that Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium poppies, the main ingredient necessary for making heroin and the C.I.A. has a long history of drug smuggling; as well as Afghanistan being known to have rich deposits of certain rare earth minerals like lithium, of critical economic importance. But the pipeline plan had to have been the primary motive.)

    As for Iraq with which they also used the specter of 9/11 to partly "justify" invading it (along with the imaginary WMDs), that's nearly self-explanatory. Iraq is sitting on a lake of oil, the reasoning being explained in a 2002 article in the San Francisco Chronicle:
    "The case Cheney vs. U.S. District Court is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court next month and could end up revealing more about the Bush administration's motives for the 2003 Iraq war than any conceivable investigation of U.S. intelligence concerning Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction. The plaintiffs, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group based in Washington, argue that Vice President Cheney and his staff violated the open-government Federal Advisory Committee Act by meeting behind closed doors with energy industry executives, analysts and lobbyists. The plaintiffs allege these discussions occurred during the formulation of the Bush administration's May 2001 "National Energy Policy." For close to three years, Cheney and the administration have resisted demands that they reveal with whom they met and what they discussed.

    Last year, a lower court ruled against Cheney and instructed him to turn over documents providing these details.
    On Dec. 15, the Supreme Court announced it would hear Cheney's appeal. Three weeks later, Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent a weekend together duck hunting at a private resort in southern Louisiana, giving rise to calls for Scalia to recuse himself. So far, he has refused. Why has the administration gone to such lengths to avoid disclosing how it developed its new energy policy? Significant evidence points to the possibility that much more could be revealed than mere corporate cronyism: The national energy policy proceedings could open a window onto the Bush administration's decision-making process and motives for going to war on Iraq.

    In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act (and after the end of the war), Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group. They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," detailing the status of their efforts. The documents are available at judicialwatch.org. These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil. The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."

    As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that "Iraq is the biggie" in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were "worried about being left out" of Iraq's oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that "the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century."
    http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-21/opinion/17417765_1_russia-s-lukoil-judicial-watch-future-oil
    http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-21/opinion/17417765_1_russia-s-lukoil-judicial-watch-future-oil/2

    So there we have it, the reason Iraq was invaded was to prevent Saddam from privatizing his country's state-owned oil resources with LukOil and Total being the major beneficiaries and the U.S. oil multinationals being left out in the cold when Iraq will most likely be the center of gravity of the 21st Century's (remaining) oil production. The only way to prevent that appears to have been to invade Iraq, remove the Ba'ath Party government and emplace a U.S.-friendly puppet government that would privatize the oil with the U.S. energy supermajors in the driver's seat.

    We also must consider Somalia. In December 2006 the U.S. goaded Ethiopia's government into invading Somalia to overthrow its "Islamic Courts Union" government that the U.S. swore was in bed with Al Chimera, er, sorry, "Al Qaeda". The U.S. provided a little air support and some intel support in the form of Army Rangers on the ground.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-07-ethiopia_x.htm
    Why? Because Somalia is believed to be sitting on a sizeable amount of crude oil which also explains the George H.W. Bush- and Clinton administrations' interest in Somalia back in the early 1990s.
    http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/15
    http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15032002/1503200246.htm
    http://worlddefensereview.com/pham081407.shtml

    So we have uncovered the real reasons for the "War on Terror" and shown it to be nothing but a series of wars for energy resource dominance as the world enters the twilight phase of the petroleum age. Like most any other war throughout history it has economic motives.