Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 871530" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Good points, but when you look at the targets selected by the hijackers, they really served NO purpose other than to "terrorize". The towers were money losers, mostly vacant, and the perfect target for "minimal damage". Rigging them was easy, they were mostly empty. If they rigged only the empty floors, who would know?</p><p></p><p>How far the conspiracy goes, we may never find out, but if bush could hire independent contractors to fight in Iraq from other countries, why couldnt they hire independent contractors outside the country to rig the buildings?</p><p></p><p>The saudi arabian goverment secretly put money into the 911 plot, and they stood the most to gain as gasoline prices jumped 400%. All of opec stood to gain on 911, why not then middle eastern hijackers? Plenty of religious reasons to convince them to buy into the plot. </p><p></p><p>BUSH may not have had direct knowledge, but I believe CHENEY who has been involved with CIA, NSA, Heritage Foundation, American Institute, the Saudis, the Iraqis, and the PNAC group DID have knowledge and was involved. BUSH was the right man for the job because he was the most clueless.</p><p></p><p>ALot of insurance money has been paid for the towers and surrounding buildings , and that made them the perfect target, they go down, insurance pays to put them back up. A temporary loss and inconvenience, but at the end of the day, the towers became more profitable falling down than standing up.</p><p></p><p>Americans would cheer the reconstruction, and afterwards, the tenancy problem would be solved with new structures because of history. A win / win.</p><p></p><p>NOBODY can explain why WTC7 fell completely in free fall speed without the help of demolition, and thats something that people are trying to communicate to everyone. I know it sounds nutty, but if you take one thing at a time, and look at the data, you will find that you have more questions that need answering, than you do explanations.</p><p></p><p>I agree, that the terrorists could have made a bigger impact by placing a nuke somewhere, but that would have been to costly in creation, and deployment and damage.</p><p></p><p>Why not fly the planes into GIANTS stadium during a game and kill 70 thousand people?</p><p></p><p>Why not fly into a nuke plant?</p><p></p><p>Why not fly into something significant in America and cause severe death?</p><p></p><p>Why choose the trade towers which had no significant value as a target?</p><p></p><p>Why the Pentagon? With its defenses and design, only minimal damage would occur.</p><p></p><p>Flight 93, why is there no evidence of a plane crash by all crash standards?</p><p></p><p>Our goverment has done things like this before. It has created these false scenarios to start wars.</p><p></p><p>Look at the gulf of Tonkin, or Operation Northwoods.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods</a></p><p></p><p>These examples of plans to FAKE a series of attacks to start wars is NOT something out of science fiction. They are real.</p><p></p><p>There is enough evidence to at least begin a conversation, that 911 was a false flag scenario made up of complicated plans. Remember, BUSH did not chose his cabinet in 2000 after winning the election, it was done for him in 1997.</p><p></p><p>What else was done for "him" before he took office? thanks for the conversation.</p><p></p><p>Peace.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 871530, member: 17969"] Good points, but when you look at the targets selected by the hijackers, they really served NO purpose other than to "terrorize". The towers were money losers, mostly vacant, and the perfect target for "minimal damage". Rigging them was easy, they were mostly empty. If they rigged only the empty floors, who would know? How far the conspiracy goes, we may never find out, but if bush could hire independent contractors to fight in Iraq from other countries, why couldnt they hire independent contractors outside the country to rig the buildings? The saudi arabian goverment secretly put money into the 911 plot, and they stood the most to gain as gasoline prices jumped 400%. All of opec stood to gain on 911, why not then middle eastern hijackers? Plenty of religious reasons to convince them to buy into the plot. BUSH may not have had direct knowledge, but I believe CHENEY who has been involved with CIA, NSA, Heritage Foundation, American Institute, the Saudis, the Iraqis, and the PNAC group DID have knowledge and was involved. BUSH was the right man for the job because he was the most clueless. ALot of insurance money has been paid for the towers and surrounding buildings , and that made them the perfect target, they go down, insurance pays to put them back up. A temporary loss and inconvenience, but at the end of the day, the towers became more profitable falling down than standing up. Americans would cheer the reconstruction, and afterwards, the tenancy problem would be solved with new structures because of history. A win / win. NOBODY can explain why WTC7 fell completely in free fall speed without the help of demolition, and thats something that people are trying to communicate to everyone. I know it sounds nutty, but if you take one thing at a time, and look at the data, you will find that you have more questions that need answering, than you do explanations. I agree, that the terrorists could have made a bigger impact by placing a nuke somewhere, but that would have been to costly in creation, and deployment and damage. Why not fly the planes into GIANTS stadium during a game and kill 70 thousand people? Why not fly into a nuke plant? Why not fly into something significant in America and cause severe death? Why choose the trade towers which had no significant value as a target? Why the Pentagon? With its defenses and design, only minimal damage would occur. Flight 93, why is there no evidence of a plane crash by all crash standards? Our goverment has done things like this before. It has created these false scenarios to start wars. Look at the gulf of Tonkin, or Operation Northwoods. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods[/URL] These examples of plans to FAKE a series of attacks to start wars is NOT something out of science fiction. They are real. There is enough evidence to at least begin a conversation, that 911 was a false flag scenario made up of complicated plans. Remember, BUSH did not chose his cabinet in 2000 after winning the election, it was done for him in 1997. What else was done for "him" before he took office? thanks for the conversation. Peace. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Top