[Vote] Who did 911?

[no-rice-peas]

Here are quick summaries of the arguments.

The transnational drug cartel is a strong argument with only circumstantial evidence.

Vietnam was of course a central heroin waypoint in the era in which the U.S. invaded. Arguments for the U.S. invasion never held much water. Some suspected the U.S. invaded Vietnam under the control of a heroin cartel within several governments including that of the U.S. Evidence has appeared sporadically but witnesses disappear and testimony changes. One example at http://www.wanttoknow.info/militarysmuggledheroin.shtml

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was long rumored to be a result of interests in the heroin trade.

Shortly before the events of 911 the Taliban announced that they had virtually eliminated opium cultivation. Since Afghanistan produced well over 90% of the opium base used for heroin this meant that heroin was basically finished.

Shortly after 911 the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and opium cultivation skyrocketed. Heroin became plentiful again. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html Other speculation http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE

The theory that radical Muslims by themselves were involved is the conventional theory promoted by the U.S. government.

However most people question this. Polls shortly after 911 showed a significant percentage of New Yorkers did not believe the government version. Further doubts were raised later when some polls showed strong support for the official line while others showed the opposite. The impression was that some mainstream polls may have been altered to give the impression that most people believed the government account. One summary of high level counts is at http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Some evidence has been presented that Israelis may have been involved.

Some of this evidence falls into the 'urban legend' category but other parts seem credible. David BenGurion and other early Zionists supposedly believed it was essential that America be under the control of its indigenous people rather than descendants of Europeans. This is discussed sometimes in other languages but never or seldom in English for some reason.

Perhaps Israelis were either associated with the earlier mentioned drug cartel or are involved in some nefarious scheme to transfer power in the new world back to first peoples.

Other theories?

Most recently there have been articles mentioning supposed Saudi involvement. Perhaps part of a secret Wahabi plan to turn Americans into Muslim Wahabis? Or something else?

Added
A 5th choice 'U.S. gov' was added. Votes to that point were 3,2,1 and 5 for the first four choices respectively.

[1715151192]

1715151192

[1715151192]

1715151192

[1715151192]

1715151192

[Snipe85]

I think you're getting too deep into it. A lot of Americans still think it was a suicidal terrorist attack made to bring the States to its knees and the government wasn't involved.
The majority also believes the Pentagon was hit by a plane, that later burned down and disappeared...

[Chef Ramsay]

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.

[toddtervy]

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.

Agree.  U.s. government job, so they could get away with civil rights violations in the name of national security.

[protokol]

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.

I found the "inside job" story plausible, after watching that old "Zeitgeist" doc - there did seem to be many discrepancies with the official story.

However, in the following few years most of the discrepancies were thoroughly debunked, things like the non-melting steel (steel does weaken when subjected to heat, even below its melting point), windows blowing out (air pressure in the building) etc. I was in an architects office when it happened, and even after the first plane hit, everyone in there was saying "that building will fall". They had extensive knowledge of the structure of the buildings.

The main reasons I think the "false flag" theory is nonsense are:

A. A huge amount of people would need to be involved, I would say at least 50, realistically hundreds. There would be a huge risk that someone would leak some info, and I don't think the risk would warrant the benefits. If any info was released, or sold to the press, there would be a full blown US revolution.

B. If the buildings were blown up, then why involve planes at all? Why not just blow them up and say it was the terrorists? It seems to me that there would be many easier ways to create a similar situation, without such complexities.

C. Why bother with the Pentagon? The gov wouldn't gain any advantage by blowing up the pentagon, as well as the WTC. I think the reason that there wasn't much info on the Pentagon incident at the time was due to embarrassment and security protocols - ie the US didn't want to admit that a plane could crash into it, and were scared of the repercussions of releasing too much info too early.

D. As I said earlier, the vast majority of the initial evidence for a false flag op has been thoroughly debunked, it seems that the only thing the conspiracy theorists say now is "But what about Building 7??". As far as I'm concerned, it's totally plausible that the building was affected by debris which caused it to fall. Unlikely maybe, but plausible, and certainly not a key piece of evidence for any conspiracy theory.

I do believe however, that the US capitalized on the incident for gains of power and wealth. In the documentary "Why We Fight" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/, it explains how some Americans believed that the first Iraq war against Saddam was retaliation for 9/11, even though Saddam actually had nothing to do with it. I think 9/11 gave an excuse for a larger military-industrial complex in the USA.

I believe with about 95% certainty that it was the radical muslims, and probably less than 1% that it was the US.

[ahmedjadoon]

Da jooz did it.   

[abyrnes81]

I don't think it was only muslims but also the USA government helped those organizations.

[Mike Christ]

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.

Agree.  U.s. government job, so they could get away with civil rights violations in the name of national security.

Also consider the industries who produce military goods have tons of cash to lobby with; Bush was a total whore for this money.  All in all it was a win-win, except for the American people of course who are always on the shit end of the stick when it comes to politics.

[BADecker]

Vote? If the upper brass in the American military did not want 9/11 to happen, it wouldn't have happened.

This isn't to say that a small something couldn't have happened. But the crashing of 2 planes into the Twin Towers, the collapsing of the Towers AND Building 7, the missile into the Pentagon (yes, it was a missile), and the faked Flight 93 crash (it never happened), wouldn't have happened if the military hadn't allowed it.

The coordination and timing was too great for others to pull it off, unaided by people inside the U.S. Military.

[dothebeats]

Vote? If the upper brass in the American military did not want 9/11 to happen, it wouldn't have happened.

This isn't to say that a small something couldn't have happened. But the crashing of 2 planes into the Twin Towers, the collapsing of the Towers AND Building 7, the missile into the Pentagon (yes, it was a missile), and the faked Flight 93 crash (it never happened), wouldn't have happened if the military hadn't allowed it.

The coordination and timing was too great for others to pull it off, unaided by people inside the U.S. Military.

I've been trying to figure it out too. Given that the U.S. Military have the technology they needed to aid them in their campaign against terrorism, still they were "tricked" by this "attackers" which resulted into different tragic events. They would have known that there were 2 planes heading towards the twin towers by the time it even entered the U.S. territory. It's hard to believe that they haven't seen this coming, so it leaves me to a conclusion that there was indeed a coordination between the gov't and the attackers.

[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.

I don't know. A quantum time viewer may be in the works that can show who did it.

 

[no-rice-peas]

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.

I found the "inside job" story plausible, after watching that old "Zeitgeist" doc - there did seem to be many discrepancies with the official story.

However, in the following few years most of the discrepancies were thoroughly debunked, things like the non-melting steel (steel does weaken when subjected to heat, even below its melting point), windows blowing out (air pressure in the building) etc. I was in an architects office when it happened, and even after the first plane hit, everyone in there was saying "that building will fall". They had extensive knowledge of the structure of the buildings.

The main reasons I think the "false flag" theory is nonsense are:

A. A huge amount of people would need to be involved, I would say at least 50, realistically hundreds. There would be a huge risk that someone would leak some info, and I don't think the risk would warrant the benefits. If any info was released, or sold to the press, there would be a full blown US revolution.

A lot of people might have been necessary to do the job right, but the evidence seems to be that it wasn't done right. It was an amateurish job by overconfident people who aren't used to having their work scrutinized. Also, the U.S. could not be driven to revolution by any scandal. Like any country it needs expensive food or similar for outright revolution.

B. If the buildings were blown up, then why involve planes at all? Why not just blow them up and say it was the terrorists? It seems to me that there would be many easier ways to create a similar situation, without such complexities.

World trade center towers in NYC were bombed previously by the FBI. The person who placed the explosives tape recorded his FBI handler giving him instructions. The details have been professionally obscured on the internet, including Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem , but you can find details of the truth online if you look.

C. Why bother with the Pentagon? The gov wouldn't gain any advantage by blowing up the pentagon, as well as the WTC. I think the reason that there wasn't much info on the Pentagon incident at the time was due to embarrassment and security protocols - ie the US didn't want to admit that a plane could crash into it, and were scared of the repercussions of releasing too much info too early.

That makes no sense.

D. As I said earlier, the vast majority of the initial evidence for a false flag op has been thoroughly debunked, it seems that the only thing the conspiracy theorists say now is "But what about Building 7??". As far as I'm concerned, it's totally plausible that the building was affected by debris which caused it to fall. Unlikely maybe, but plausible, and certainly not a key piece of evidence for any conspiracy theory.

A number of silly aspects of a possible conspiracy were put forth, and those were quickly debunked. In fact it kind of looks like some of the sillier notions were put out there just to discredit all the legitimate issues by association. All of the substantial questions raised remain undebunked.

I do believe however, that the US capitalized on the incident for gains of power and wealth. In the documentary "Why We Fight" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/, it explains how some Americans believed that the first Iraq war against Saddam was retaliation for 9/11, even though Saddam actually had nothing to do with it. I think 9/11 gave an excuse for a larger military-industrial complex in the USA.

I believe with about 95% certainty that it was the radical muslims, and probably less than 1% that it was the US.

Most people disagree with you.

[no-rice-peas]

Why there's no USA Gov box in the voting?

Added.

[asuryan180]

I voted US government for a few reasons, the time it took for the building to comedown was freefall speed meaning none of that super reinforced steal girders was slowing it down whatsoever, meaning they was detonated and if you look you can see the explosions going down the towers. Why was building 7 'pulled'. Witness reports that what hit the pentagon was a missile drone. No aircraft scattered everywhere. The owner had it insured massively 7 billion if i remember just before..      

[protokol]

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.

I found the "inside job" story plausible, after watching that old "Zeitgeist" doc - there did seem to be many discrepancies with the official story.

However, in the following few years most of the discrepancies were thoroughly debunked, things like the non-melting steel (steel does weaken when subjected to heat, even below its melting point), windows blowing out (air pressure in the building) etc. I was in an architects office when it happened, and even after the first plane hit, everyone in there was saying "that building will fall". They had extensive knowledge of the structure of the buildings.

The main reasons I think the "false flag" theory is nonsense are:

A. A huge amount of people would need to be involved, I would say at least 50, realistically hundreds. There would be a huge risk that someone would leak some info, and I don't think the risk would warrant the benefits. If any info was released, or sold to the press, there would be a full blown US revolution.

A lot of people might have been necessary to do the job right, but the evidence seems to be that it wasn't done right. It was an amateurish job by overconfident people who aren't used to having their work scrutinized. Also, the U.S. could not be driven to revolution by any scandal. Like any country it needs expensive food or similar for outright revolution.

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.

B. If the buildings were blown up, then why involve planes at all? Why not just blow them up and say it was the terrorists? It seems to me that there would be many easier ways to create a similar situation, without such complexities.

World trade center towers in NYC were bombed previously by the FBI. The person who placed the explosives tape recorded his FBI handler giving him instructions. The details have been professionally obscured on the internet, including Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem , but you can find details of the truth online if you look.

That may be so, not sure how that relates to my point, which was: Why have a plan with unnecessary kamikaze passenger planes, if the buildings were rigged to blow up anyway? Likewise, why rig the buildings to blow if you know planes are going to fly into them? Hundreds of people would still have died even if the buildings hadn't fallen, and the buildings would probably have been demolished later, achieving similar end results. Seems overly complex to me, I don't buy it.

C. Why bother with the Pentagon? The gov wouldn't gain any advantage by blowing up the pentagon, as well as the WTC. I think the reason that there wasn't much info on the Pentagon incident at the time was due to embarrassment and security protocols - ie the US didn't want to admit that a plane could crash into it, and were scared of the repercussions of releasing too much info too early.

That makes no sense.

My point relates to the first one. If you are planning to fly planes into and blow up the WTC, (eg to gain support for wars, claiming of oil-rich land, to cause fear in the population for your own gain etc.), then why would you also blow up the Pentagon with a plane/missile/whatever? I don't see how that really adds to the effect of the WTC incident? If there was a conspiracy, this part of the plan would increase the risk and expense of the plan hugely, without any significant change to the public perception of the incident.

D. As I said earlier, the vast majority of the initial evidence for a false flag op has been thoroughly debunked, it seems that the only thing the conspiracy theorists say now is "But what about Building 7??". As far as I'm concerned, it's totally plausible that the building was affected by debris which caused it to fall. Unlikely maybe, but plausible, and certainly not a key piece of evidence for any conspiracy theory.

A number of silly aspects of a possible conspiracy were put forth, and those were quickly debunked. In fact it kind of looks like some of the sillier notions were put out there just to discredit all the legitimate issues by association. All of the substantial questions raised remain undebunked.

Hmm, well the main ones IMO were the steel melting, the window blowouts, the "free fall" collapse, and the hole in the Pentagon. All these have been explained as far as I'm concerned, and all that remains are vague discrepancies. None of these discrepancies are strong enough evidence for the incredible story that some people believe.

I do believe however, that the US capitalized on the incident for gains of power and wealth. In the documentary "Why We Fight" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/, it explains how some Americans believed that the first Iraq war against Saddam was retaliation for 9/11, even though Saddam actually had nothing to do with it. I think 9/11 gave an excuse for a larger military-industrial complex in the USA.

I believe with about 95% certainty that it was the radical muslims, and probably less than 1% that it was the US.

Most people disagree with you.

Most people are idiots.

[LiteCoinGuy]

[Spendulus]

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?

[--Encrypted--]

I'm not gonna vote, sorry 

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

[Gervais]

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.

[redsn0w]

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.