RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks?

RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 And I hate to say it, but I am not much of a patriot and would probably be even less of one if somebody tried to force it down my throat with some spurious act of Parliament. Would that not define the Patriot Act? It was passed in a moment of fervor spurred by the attack... not based on the Constitution. A lot of civil rights went out the window that day... and when it was reenacted years later.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:10:11 PM)
From what I've read and heard of it Gauge, yes it would. It's very similar to a lot of the laws and acts and regulations that were passed in Wartime Britain, most of which were taken off the books at the end of that war I believe. Was it done in a moment of fervour or was it a calculated act on somebody's part to be able to pass MORE regulations over time ? The opportunity may have arisen for that act to be passed and somebody jumped at the chance maybe ?

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:12:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne dood all the NIST redactions 'IS' a fact, not a speculation, it proves gubmint involvement, but thats ok if you think arguing fantasy speculations has value be my guest. Not pertinent to my original post as stated for what I was looking for in the responders. If you offer facts in this thread, you have missed the point entirely. To be clear... Speculation is not factual. I never asked for facts, I asked for opinions. I restricted those opinions to exclude the towers, the Pentagon and the airplane in PA. Yes, you do not have to abide by my restrictions, nor do I have to listen to anyone that decides that the topic that I wish to discuss has zero merit, based on nothing that I have asked for.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:23:33 PM)
Living where I do and knowing what little I know about the actual happenings ( I was in N.Z. the day of the Twin Towers and only saw it multiple times on T.V. over the next week or so), I CAN only offer speculations or semi-educated guesses smile. It certainly seemed like a heaven-sent opportunity for the conspiracy ratbags and the government regulators to all come crawling out from under their rocks though. though.

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 From what I've read and heard of it Gauge, yes it would. It's very similar to a lot of the laws and acts and regulations that were passed in Wartime Britain, most of which were taken off the books at the end of that war I believe. Was it done in a moment of fervour or was it a calculated act on somebody's part to be able to pass MORE regulations over time ? The opportunity may have arisen for that act to be passed and somebody jumped at the chance maybe ? Thank you for the discussion. I mean it. I understand wartime laws. They seek to squelch something that a government fears can harm their war effort. That I get. "Loose lips sink ships" and all of that. To make laws that take away foundational concepts of the Constitution, and then perpetuate them... not so much. I will paraphrase a quote, and please, don't crucify me if I get it wrong... "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." (Attributed to Ben Franklin). What we were asked to give up was liberty and freedom. What we were told is that doing so would ensure security. Were they right? I think so. Edited to add: I mean that I believe that the one that made the quote was right, not that taking away liberties was right.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:28:03 PM)
Wasn't it Ben Franklin ( or somebody like him smile) who said...........patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel ?

Dvr22999874 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:29:09 PM)
Sorry, no. It was Mark Twain.........................I liked that man smile.

MSTR4SLV30 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 10:41:00 PM)
i for one agree with the OP here, the towers and pentagon and the downed plane has no bearing on the question asked if it was possible if so why? the answer for me is YES ITS POSSIBLE 1st off yes we wanted a back up deposit of oil producing reserve since we were being pressured by our own public outcry to become more eco friendly in order to lower greenhouse emissions this way if we screw up their land no big loss, secondly it put us in a great spot to advance our troops into the capitol and undermine their capitol funding which would spearhead their final goal of number 3, finally in order to maintain our global place in the economy came the Afghanistan war with the Taliban, some say it inevitable me i say it was a smokescreen why, because we wanted another foothold in an unknown commodity that region has in the largest abundance known to date, Lithium ore. look at it this way nothing available now compares to lithium batteries, sounds bad i know but ask yourself this question, do you think our defense contractors and drone builders are gonna be slapping Duracell batteries into thier drones or using Li-ion batteries edited once again==== if you have seen the movie, Avitar they said it best in that video, "if the government wants something this is how they do it" they make the bad guys up so they can move in justifiably

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:09:58 PM)
yeh well I dont have to speculate about gubmint involvement I know they are involved and so does everyone else here if they are truthful with themselves. FBI could have stopped the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the fbi conspired to blow up the towers and provided the explosives to do just that, but they were recorded and busted and of course the gubmint simply turned their heads the other way and framed everything on the guy who was well framed. and its explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS62kSIVqW4 why speculate when you can use facts?

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh well I dont have to speculate about gubmint involvement I know they are involved and so does everyone else here if they are truthful with themselves. FBI could have stopped the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the fbi conspired to blow up the towers and provided the explosives to do just that, but they were recorded and busted and of course the gubmint simply turned their heads the other way and framed everything on the guy who was well framed. and its explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS62kSIVqW4 why speculate when you can use facts? quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge I do not want to discuss any conspiracy theory relative to the towers, pentagon or the downed flight in PA. Want the link?

Dvr22999874 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:24:50 PM)
I am wondering if RealOne actually blew up the twin towers himself because that was what he needed to make his whacked out conspiracy theories seem like they might be conceivably based on a modicum of fact

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:27:52 PM)
yeh Like it or not I posted conspiracy facts Oh look heres more! Oklahoma City Bombing that reveals that there were 3 explosive devices planted INSIDE the building. How did Timothy McVeigh pull that one off?

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh Like it or not I posted conspiracy facts Like it or not, I am asking for opinions... like it or not I stated only my opinion. Like it or not, all I want to do is talk about opinions. I don't want to state that my opinions are facts. So, all that I ask of you is to stick to what I asked for and stop trying to push your agenda. I've been open about not having one... have you?

Dvr22999874 -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:37:04 PM)
Could the whole thing just have been horribly mismanaged. I have heard there is great rivalry between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies. Could there have been a horrible breakdown in communications and after it happened, everybody was so busy covering their asses and denying responsibility, that it gave the powers that be an easy opportunity to institute new and draconian laws ?

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:50:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh Like it or not I posted conspiracy facts Like it or not, I am asking for opinions... like it or not I stated only my opinion. Like it or not, all I want to do is talk about opinions. I don't want to state that my opinions are facts. So, all that I ask of you is to stick to what I asked for and stop trying to push your agenda. I've been open about not having one... have you? well like it or not my opinions have a solid basis in fact and dont stray too far from provable. On April 19, 1993, in Waco Texas the U.S. government incinerated 86 of it's own citizens for the crime of exercising their constitutional rights of freedom of religion, right to bear arms, and freedom of speech. Timothy McVeigh, who had been at the scene to witness some of the events during the preceding 50 day standoff with U.S. troops, witnessed the inferno erupt on television. Two years later to the day, on April 19, 1995, the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a bomb blast. McVeigh was arrested a short time later after being pulled over for driving a car with no license plate and possession of an unlicensed firearm. Several days later he was identified by witnesses as one of two people seen getting out of a Ryder rental truck that was parked in front just before the blast. The other suspect was never identified, and his existence was denied by the government even though he was caught on videotape. Seven important facts: 1. In April 1995, the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Bill was struggling to get through the US Congress. After the OKC Bombing occurred, the tragedy looked as though it had been tailor-made to rally public support for the tyrannical bill. 2. The morning of the bombing, the ATF office located inside the Murrah building was empty, unheard of at 9 AM on a weekday. 3. Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook told a victim in a taped conversation in 1995 that the OKC bombing was a failed a national security operation that used an FBI provocateur associated with a militia. 4. The ATF was already putting out a story that the Murrah Building was bombed "because of Waco" only a few hours after the actual blast and before Tim McVeigh was even arrested. 5. An unexploded bomb was found attached to a gas line inside the building, and a FEMA memo reports at least two additional bombs were found in the Murrah Building. Joe Harp, based on his military explosives experience, identified the additional bombs he saw removed from the building as being military in nature. 6. General Benton K. Partin, USAF (Ret.) stated in his OKC Bombing report to US Congress that "The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building." 7. Prior to the OKC bombing US Senator Arlan Specter as well as Clinton's NSC director Anthony Lake had been advocating federal national security operations to stop militias in America. Anthony Lake gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the Fall of 1994 in which he said the chief cornerstone of government policy was to "pit our society against militias". THE GOVERNMENT SAID THE ATTACK WAS BECAUSE OF WACO EVEN BEFORE MCVEIGH WAS A SUSPECT Do you seriously believe that Timothy McVeigh, a supposed rarely employed drifter, virtually broke and alone as the government would have us believe, was able to plan, assemble a sophisticated bomb, and pull off the largest terror attack on American soil up to that time? If one looks at the details of this, one would have to conclude McVeigh was part of a very large conspiracy, involving CIA sponsored domestic and Middle Eastern helpers. The F.B.I.'s refusal to follow up and ignore so many leads went beyond its ordinary incompetence and reeked of treason. McVeigh attorney Stephen Jones, who worked on this case for years, believed McVeigh was just a part of a greater conspiracy. The last thing McVeigh would do is turn over information on co-conspiritors to those he despised. Also, McVeigh wanted himself seen as someone who fired the first shot that would start a revolution against a government capable of atrocities such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. He wanted to take full credit for the bombing, and did not want to share it with anyone. In his view, this would make him a mythic figure, a martyr for the revolution. The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was where all of the records of the Waco Seige were being kept. McVeigh was seen with several unidentified individuals, many with middle eastern features in the weeks leading up to the bombing. At the trial, these facts were NOT allowed in as evidence. Also at his trial his sister read a letter from McVeigh to the grand jury in which he told her he was going into the Special Forces Covert Tactical Unit. Survivor Jane Graham tells of three very suspicious men she saw in the Murrah Building Garage the week prior to the bombing, and was shocked by the FBI's obvious disinterest in the matter. http://nstarzone.com/OKC.html who needs speculation when we have the goods on these fucking 3 letter terrorists. would the gubblemint get involved? nah...... Just because they were involved in every other attack on US soil who would think it.

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/10/2016 11:56:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh Like it or not I posted conspiracy facts Like it or not, I am asking for opinions... like it or not I stated only my opinion. Like it or not, all I want to do is talk about opinions. I don't want to state that my opinions are facts. So, all that I ask of you is to stick to what I asked for and stop trying to push your agenda. I've been open about not having one... have you? well like it or not my opinions have a solid basis in fact and dont stray too far from provable.[/color] On April 19, 1993, in Waco Texas the U.S. government incinerated 86 of it's own citizens for the crime of exercising their constitutional rights of freedom of religion, right to bear arms, and freedom of speech. Timothy McVeigh, who had been at the scene to witness some of the events during the preceding 50 day standoff with U.S. troops, witnessed the inferno erupt on television. Two years later to the day, on April 19, 1995, the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a bomb blast. McVeigh was arrested a short time later after being pulled over for driving a car with no license plate and possession of an unlicensed firearm. Several days later he was identified by witnesses as one of two people seen getting out of a Ryder rental truck that was parked in front just before the blast. The other suspect was never identified, and his existence was denied by the government even though he was caught on videotape. Seven important facts: 1. In April 1995, the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Bill was struggling to get through the US Congress. After the OKC Bombing occurred, the tragedy looked as though it had been tailor-made to rally public support for the tyrannical bill. 2. The morning of the bombing, the ATF office located inside the Murrah building was empty, unheard of at 9 AM on a weekday. 3. Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook told a victim in a taped conversation in 1995 that the OKC bombing was a failed a national security operation that used an FBI provocateur associated with a militia. 4. The ATF was already putting out a story that the Murrah Building was bombed "because of Waco" only a few hours after the actual blast and before Tim McVeigh was even arrested. 5. An unexploded bomb was found attached to a gas line inside the building, and a FEMA memo reports at least two additional bombs were found in the Murrah Building. Joe Harp, based on his military explosives experience, identified the additional bombs he saw removed from the building as being military in nature. 6. General Benton K. Partin, USAF (Ret.) stated in his OKC Bombing report to US Congress that "The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building." 7. Prior to the OKC bombing US Senator Arlan Specter as well as Clinton's NSC director Anthony Lake had been advocating federal national security operations to stop militias in America. Anthony Lake gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the Fall of 1994 in which he said the chief cornerstone of government policy was to "pit our society against militias". THE GOVERNMENT SAID THE ATTACK WAS BECAUSE OF WACO EVEN BEFORE MCVEIGH WAS A SUSPECT Do you seriously believe that Timothy McVeigh, a supposed rarely employed drifter, virtually broke and alone as the government would have us believe, was able to plan, assemble a sophisticated bomb, and pull off the largest terror attack on American soil up to that time? If one looks at the details of this, one would have to conclude McVeigh was part of a very large conspiracy, involving CIA sponsored domestic and Middle Eastern helpers. The F.B.I.'s refusal to follow up and ignore so many leads went beyond its ordinary incompetence and reeked of treason. McVeigh attorney Stephen Jones, who worked on this case for years, believed McVeigh was just a part of a greater conspiracy. The last thing McVeigh would do is turn over information on co-conspiritors to those he despised. Also, McVeigh wanted himself seen as someone who fired the first shot that would start a revolution against a government capable of atrocities such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. He wanted to take full credit for the bombing, and did not want to share it with anyone. In his view, this would make him a mythic figure, a martyr for the revolution. The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was where all of the records of the Waco Seige were being kept. McVeigh was seen with several unidentified individuals, many with middle eastern features in the weeks leading up to the bombing. At the trial, these facts were NOT allowed in as evidence. Also at his trial his sister read a letter from McVeigh to the grand jury in which he told her he was going into the Special Forces Covert Tactical Unit. Survivor Jane Graham tells of three very suspicious men she saw in the Murrah Building Garage the week prior to the bombing, and was shocked by the FBI's obvious disinterest in the matter. http://nstarzone.com/OKC.html who needs speculation when we have the goods on these fucking 3 letter terrorists. would the gubblemint get involved? nah...... Just because they were involved in every other attack on US soil who would think it. What the actual fuck are you talking about? Has it anything to do with what I have asked for as far as responses? The Oklahoma City bombing and Waco have fuckall to do with my OP. I am trying to be respectful to you, but you are so off topic at the moment that I am disinclined to take you seriously.

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/11/2016 12:15:40 AM)
well its irrational to discuss 911 with no mention of the towers, so I edited out any reference to towers below LOL [8\|] WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video). Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the BLEEP and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the BLEEP, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the BLEEP. Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS. On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building. In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that "Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject,' is purged from the screens". This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers' screens as part of the war game exercises. Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were MOVED UP to September 11th by persons unknown. Interestingly, Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this previously-cited essay. And while the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, this short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation's testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the BLEEP. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away? Moreover, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the BLEEP flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the BLEEP tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview). Additionally, this diagram shows that the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. See also this essay regarding the stand down of the military; and see this war game proposal created before 9/11 revolving around Bin Laden and including "live-fly exercises" involving real planes, later confirmed by this official Department of Defense website. Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective: (1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower; or (2) Someone like Cheney -- who on 9/11 apparently had full control over all defense, war game and counter-terrorism powers -- rigging and gaming the system? Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded, it was necessary that actions be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response. For example, Cheney watched flight 77 approach BLEEP from many miles out, but instructed the military to do nothing (as shown in the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, linked above). Could Bin Laden have done that? Fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), so as to neutralize their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners Could Osama Bin Laden and his sent-from-the-cave band of followers have exercised this degree of control over the military? Obviously not. And air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. (thats what pilots for 911 truth also said.) This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals. Could Bin Laden have interfered with the full purging of false radar blips inserted as part of the war games? In other words, could Bin Laden have overridden the purging process so that some false blips remained and confused air traffic controllers? The answer is clear. Therefore, it is statistically much more likely that Cheney and/or other high-level U.S. government and military officials pulled the 9/11 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least, they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers' attacks succeeded. As discussed previously, a former air force colonel and director of the Star Wars program stated "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the BLEEP would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason" the more appropriate title for your thread would have been is it possible for the gubmint to NOT be involved, and this is the short version the long version actually provides far more evidence than you can get from this site, but its enough to get the point across.

Gauge -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/11/2016 12:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well its irrational to discuss 911 with no mention of the towers You just called me irrational. I asked that folks not include theories involving the tower et. al. I am asking about something that I am curious about. Just theories that I have had and others have had. I will outright reject anyone that posts here and claims their words are facts. Post your "facts" somewhere else... here I will welcome your opinions on the topic that I would like to discuss.

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/11/2016 12:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well its irrational to discuss 911 with no mention of the towers You just called me irrational. I asked that folks not include theories involving the tower et. al. I am asking about something that I am curious about. Just theories that I have had and others have had. I will outright reject anyone that posts here and claims their words are facts. Post your "facts" somewhere else... here I will welcome your opinions on the topic that I would like to discuss. yes its irrational. September 11 is about the towers 9/11 is septenber 11, and you said 911 in your title, that event is about the towers. If you only wanted to limit your talk about gubblemint atttacking it own then you should have left out 9/11. Secondly you told me I was off topic when I talked about murrah so apparently this is not about 911 and its not about gubblemint attacking it own people either, or its an irrational topic. Aint trying to disrepect ya man but you went full circle.

MrRodgers -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/11/2016 12:36:32 AM)
As with any effort to establish a new level of control over a society, one (govt.) must create fear. To do that and also cement that fear one must create an enemy. To galvanize America in that state of fear (and war), what was needed as stated in at least one publication and I think it was Brzezinski, [it] needed a new Pearl Harbor...we got fear and amazingly well-planned...we got an enemy too. How convenient. The real problem with such speculation as to why the govt. would allow it, IS to speculate on any lack of involvement (allowance) requiring speculation on any resulting involvement. Otherwise, just how does anybody and of course, that means anybody, successfully attack the Pentagon ? To speculate on anything so outlandishly criminal and just why it may have been 'allowed' to happen, requires one to speculate on...ALL of it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375