[Vote] Who did 911?

[J. J. Phillips]

If it wasn't Jihadis, then why did the Muslim world celebrate it?

[1715356184]

1715356184

[1715356184]

1715356184

[1715356184]

1715356184

[Spendulus]

A group of transnational heroin traffickers affiliated with various governments.

Well that's a new one I've not heard before. I think the price rise of heroin was just a byproduct of war rather than a conspiracy by the dealers to be honest.

And where's the Illuminati option?

Honestly though, I have absolutely no idea who was ultimately behind 9/11 or if the USG knew about it and let it happen, but I'm skeptical Bin Laden had anything to do with it. He was just a convenient patsy.

Bin Laden's car driver seemed to disagree with you on that.

Oh, wait, let's just disregard him.

[no-rice-peas]

No, my point is there would be a chance of eg. someone leaking documents which were concrete evidence (similar to the docs Snowden leaked). No concrete evidence for a false flag attack has been found, only vague circumstantial connections.

In my opinion, no intelligent person (be that CIA/MOSSAD/Illuminati/reptilian etc etc.) would undergo an operation with such huge risk of repercussions, when there would be safer ways of achieving the same end result (excuse for Iraq invasion, defence contracts, claiming oil etc.). Why plan such an intricate plot involving passenger planes/missiles/fake flights/co-ordination between multiple gov departments? There would be easier ways to do it, doesn't add up IMO.

That is one of the best anti conspiracy arguments I've come across.

Some counter arguments.
1) If the act were perpetrated by people acting for ideological reasons than Snowden type leaks would not be a problem.
2) The evidence for a broader conspiracy is considerably more than 'vague circumstantial connections'.
3) Whether 'an easier way' existed would depend on what the goals were. If the goal were simply to harm the United States with minimal risk they could have spent a few million dollars generating counterfeit USD and dropping them around strategic places. It looks rather that the goal involved a significant psychological factor, and further that conspiracy theories may have been part of the goal.

----------

I'm not gonna vote, sorry  

OP should add "I don't know" as an option.

added

---------

One strong piece of evidence that is often overlooked is that the debris field from the plane that went down in PA was inconsistent with the stories about how it crashed. However it is consistent with a missile shoot down. .

False.  A missile shoot down would have spread major parts of the aircraft over a 5-10 mile range.  Why would you say something like this?

You take a phony authoritative tone "why would you say something like this" instead of simply spending a few seconds on Google.
The debris field is not even close to what it would be if the official account were accurate.
It is exactly what it would be in the case of an air to air missile strike.
Flight 93 was almost certainly shot down.

1) Debris was scattered up to 8 miles from the main impact site.
2) There was an effort initiated from within the USG to promote the idea that there might have been a bomb on board, which would have explained the wide debris field.
From Wikipedia "The first responders arrived at the crash site after 10:06.[52] Cleveland Center controllers, unaware the flight had crashed, notified the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) at 10:07 that Flight 93 had a bomb on board and passed the last known position. This call was the first time the military was notified about the flight.[21] Ballinger sent one final ACARS message to Flight 93 at 10:10, "Don't divert to DC. Not an option." He repeated the message one minute later. The Herndon Command Center alerted FAA headquarters that Flight 93 had crashed at 10:13.[21] "

etc

----------

A group of transnational heroin traffickers affiliated with various governments.

Well that's a new one I've not heard before. I think the price rise of heroin was just a byproduct of war rather than a conspiracy by the dealers to be honest.

Actually the heroin conspiracy is the only conspiracy theory that is supported by all of the evidence and is not contradicted by any of the evidence. It looks like 911 was a raggedy makeshift plan by people in several governments who saw what the Taliban were doing and needed a quick stop.

It explains the Israeli involvement, the high level U.S. involvement, the lack of substantive challenge from Russia's intelligence services, in effect the Russian involvement, and many other odd pieces.

[Baghead]

If I can say my personal opinion, the united states with the help of other organization did the 9/11. The muslims were only the "scapegoat" but they have directed the two airplane.

This is also my opinion that sections of the untied states government planned and organized the attacks, there is to many so called coincidences for it not to be them unless they are being framed lol. Fun fact the ground zero states flag was stolen. 

[Spendulus]

If I can say my personal opinion, the united states with the help of other organization did the 9/11. The muslims were only the "scapegoat" but they have directed the two airplane.

This is also my opinion that sections of the untied states government planned and organized the attacks, there is to many so called coincidences for it not to be them unless they are being framed lol. Fun fact the ground zero states flag was stolen. 

Sure, so all the loved ones who talked to their relatives on Flight 93 were talking to who?  Government agents that imitated their husbands, wives, children?

http://www.history.com/topics/flight-93

Huddled in the back of the plane, the passengers and crew of Flight 93 made a series of calls on their cell phones and the in-flight Airfones, informing family members and officials on the ground of the plane’s hijacking. When they learned the fate of the three other hijacked flights in New York City and Washington, D.C., the passengers realized that their plane was involved in a larger terrorist plot and would likely be used to carry out further attacks on U.S. soil. After a brief discussion, a vote was taken and the passengers decided to fight back against their hijackers, informing several people on the ground of their plans. One of the passengers, Thomas Burnett Jr., told his wife over the phone, “I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who are going to do something about it. I love you, honey.” Another passenger, Todd Beamer, was heard over an open line saying, “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant, called her husband and explained that she had slipped into a galley and was filling pitchers with boiling water. Her last words to him were: “Everyone’s running to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”

At 9:57 the passengers and crew aboard Flight 93 began their counterattack, as recorded by the cockpit voice recorder. In response, the hijacker piloting the plane began to roll the aircraft, pitching it up and down to throw the charging passengers off balance. Worried that the passengers would soon break through to the cockpit, the hijackers made the decision to crash the plane before reaching their final destination. At 10:02 a voice was recorded saying, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.” Several other voices chanted “Allah is great” as the plane’s controls were turned hard to the right. The airplane then rolled onto its back and plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour. Flight 93’s intended target is not known, but it is belived that the hijackers were targeting the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland or several nuclear power plants along the Eastern seaboard.

[no-rice-peas]

Spendulus you are off on a red herring. It doesn't really matter why flight 93 went down. It is a peripheral issue.

The evidence indicates it was shot down and that was then hidden from the public. But it doesn't really matter here, it is not central to the broader 911 question.

There is little doubt that passengers were going to try to overwhelm the hijackers and there is little doubt that while that process was developing the plane was shot down, a tragedy within a tragedy. If it was shot down most people would reluctantly admit the decision was justifiable based on everything that was known. It is the rampant deception surrounding so many aspects of 911 that is not justifiable.

Who does the deception serve and who pays the price for it?

[TheButterZone]

Whoever decided decades ago that it was the best practice to allow people to fly with clothes on and carry-on luggage, without having everyone armed for mutual assured destruction of any highjackers.

[Spendulus]

Spendulus you are off on a red herring. It doesn't really matter why flight 93 went down. It is a peripheral issue.

The evidence indicates it was shot down and that was then hidden from the public. But it doesn't really matter here, it is not central to the broader 911 question.

There is little doubt that passengers were going to try to overwhelm the hijackers and there is little doubt that while that process was developing the plane was shot down, a tragedy within a tragedy. If it was shot down most people would reluctantly admit the decision was justifiable based on everything that was known. It is the rampant deception surrounding so many aspects of 911 that is not justifiable.

Who does the deception serve and who pays the price for it?

No, the evidence does not show it was shot down. 

Have you actually looked at the so called "debris fields?"  They are not typical of either in air breakups or planes being "shot down."  There really isn't much debris there at all.

I am saying this.  You admit the complete story of the passengers counterattacking, but conclude then that a fighter jet shot it down.  (No SAM batteries are deployed....) 

So missiles were pulled from storage, mounted on a combat aircraft that was fueled and ready to go, the aircraft launched, and the attack commenced....and that combat aircraft is going after 93 WHICH HAS IT'S TRANSPONDER TURNED OFF???   This encounter is successful, and the aircraft is shot down.  But no major parts such as wing, tail section, etc are found scattered?  No seats?

This is a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.

[BADecker]

Spendulus you are off on a red herring. It doesn't really matter why flight 93 went down. It is a peripheral issue.

The evidence indicates it was shot down and that was then hidden from the public. But it doesn't really matter here, it is not central to the broader 911 question.

There is little doubt that passengers were going to try to overwhelm the hijackers and there is little doubt that while that process was developing the plane was shot down, a tragedy within a tragedy. If it was shot down most people would reluctantly admit the decision was justifiable based on everything that was known. It is the rampant deception surrounding so many aspects of 911 that is not justifiable.

Who does the deception serve and who pays the price for it?

No, the evidence does not show it was shot down.  

Have you actually looked at the so called "debris fields?"  They are not typical of either in air breakups or planes being "shot down."  There really isn't much debris there at all.

I am saying this.  You admit the complete story of the passengers counterattacking, but conclude then that a fighter jet shot it down.  (No SAM batteries are deployed....)  

So missiles were pulled from storage, mounted on a combat aircraft that was fueled and ready to go, the aircraft launched, and the attack commenced....and that combat aircraft is going after 93 WHICH HAS IT'S TRANSPONDER TURNED OFF???   This encounter is successful, and the aircraft is shot down.  But no major parts such as wing, tail section, etc are found scattered?  No seats?

This is a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.

No debris says no plane. We watch many things in movies. It's part of the way Americans are so easily led to believe that the impossible can happen. They saw the impossible happen in movies.

[sana54210]

This voting is not complete without the option Terrorists , they are the ones who had done with wrong ideologies that fuelled this great atrocity against the humanity.

[BADecker]

This voting is not complete without the option Terrorists , they are the ones who had done with wrong ideologies that fuelled this great atrocity against the humanity.

Of course, then we would have to explain what terrorists are...

- Muslim Extremists
- Cops
- People who kill their kids by abortion
- etc.

[BrianM]

If this was an inside job like many believe, those that perpetrated the whole thing aren't likely going to ever be prosecuted until the afterlife.

Well said.

OP:
In my opinion is the whole conspericy theory completely absurd.
No goverment would like to have this type of damage on their capital, its just out of porportions.
The same political goals could be made with much less damage.
This is without any doubt in my mind the work of nasty teoriest.

[sana54210]

This voting is not complete without the option Terrorists , they are the ones who had done with wrong ideologies that fuelled this great atrocity against the humanity.

Of course, then we would have to explain what terrorists are...

- Muslim Extremists
- Cops
- People who kill their kids by abortion
- etc.

Terrorsist are anyone who are against humanity, there are extremists everywhere

Muslims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden,

Christians  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik ,

Hindhus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dara_Singh_(Bajrang_Dal)

and so on,

a simple answer will be anyone who is against humanity can be considered as a terrorist.

[BADecker]

If this was an inside job like many believe, those that perpetrated the whole thing aren't likely going to ever be prosecuted until the afterlife.

Well said.

OP:
In my opinion is the whole conspericy theory completely absurd.
No goverment would like to have this type of damage on their capital, its just out of porportions.
The same political goals could be made with much less damage.
This is without any doubt in my mind the work of nasty teoriest.

You talk like government is made up of people who are all on the same page, who all agree, and who have complete control of themselves in every way. Sounds kind of absurd to me.

[BADecker]

This voting is not complete without the option Terrorists , they are the ones who had done with wrong ideologies that fuelled this great atrocity against the humanity.

Of course, then we would have to explain what terrorists are...

- Muslim Extremists
- Cops
- People who kill their kids by abortion
- etc.

Terrorsist are anyone who are against humanity, there are extremists everywhere

Muslims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden,

Christians  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik ,

Hindhus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dara_Singh_(Bajrang_Dal)

and so on,

a simple answer will be anyone who is against humanity can be considered as a terrorist.

I don't like terrorists. That's why I don't watch horror movies. I don't like being terrorized.

 

[RodeoX]

A vote is always a good way to determine truth. It's how we knew the Earth was flat for thousands of years. 

[sana54210]

This voting is not complete without the option Terrorists , they are the ones who had done with wrong ideologies that fuelled this great atrocity against the humanity.

Of course, then we would have to explain what terrorists are...

- Muslim Extremists
- Cops
- People who kill their kids by abortion
- etc.

Terrorsist are anyone who are against humanity, there are extremists everywhere

Muslims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden,

Christians  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik ,

Hindhus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dara_Singh_(Bajrang_Dal)

and so on,

a simple answer will be anyone who is against humanity can be considered as a terrorist.

I don't like terrorists. That's why I don't watch horror movies. I don't like being terrorized.

 

Thats nice , society always has cancer in some form or another during every era of time, there were no terrorists during the world war time, instead it was dictators, as there are 2 sides to a coin, the good and bad will always be there

[BADecker]

A vote is always a good way to determine truth. It's how we knew the Earth was flat for thousands of years. 

The shape of the earth didn't matter to those who weren't affected by knowing it. Those who needed the knowledge for some particular purpose, knew the earth wasn't flat... like Columbus. Ferdinand and Isabella understood the truth when Columbus showed it to them. They simply were quiet about it, because the Roman Church - which always wants to keep people ignorant of the truth - was powerful in those days.

Many other people understood that the earth wasn't flat.

However, maybe it is flat.

 

[RodeoX]

A vote is always a good way to determine truth. It's how we knew the Earth was flat for thousands of years. 

The shape of the earth didn't matter to those who weren't affected by knowing it. Those who needed the knowledge for some particular purpose, knew the earth wasn't flat... like Columbus. Ferdinand and Isabella understood the truth when Columbus showed it to them. They simply were quiet about it, because the Roman Church - which always wants to keep people ignorant of the truth - was powerful in those days.

Many other people understood that the earth wasn't flat.

However, maybe it is flat.

 

Yes. I did know that since at least the Greeks many people knew the world was round. But that would ruin a perfectly good wisecrack. 

[Spendulus]

Spendulus you are off on a red herring. It doesn't really matter why flight 93 went down. It is a peripheral issue.

The evidence indicates it was shot down and that was then hidden from the public. But it doesn't really matter here, it is not central to the broader 911 question.

There is little doubt that passengers were going to try to overwhelm the hijackers and there is little doubt that while that process was developing the plane was shot down, a tragedy within a tragedy. If it was shot down most people would reluctantly admit the decision was justifiable based on everything that was known. It is the rampant deception surrounding so many aspects of 911 that is not justifiable.

Who does the deception serve and who pays the price for it?

No, the evidence does not show it was shot down.  

Have you actually looked at the so called "debris fields?"  They are not typical of either in air breakups or planes being "shot down."  There really isn't much debris there at all.

I am saying this.  You admit the complete story of the passengers counterattacking, but conclude then that a fighter jet shot it down.  (No SAM batteries are deployed....)  

So missiles were pulled from storage, mounted on a combat aircraft that was fueled and ready to go, the aircraft launched, and the attack commenced....and that combat aircraft is going after 93 WHICH HAS IT'S TRANSPONDER TURNED OFF???   This encounter is successful, and the aircraft is shot down.  But no major parts such as wing, tail section, etc are found scattered?  No seats?

This is a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.

No debris says no plane. We watch many things in movies. It's part of the way Americans are so easily led to believe that the impossible can happen. They saw the impossible happen in movies.

But there was debris.  Unfortunately for the conspiracy theory, the debris was exactly where the Government guys and first responders said it was - in a hole in the ground.