Topic: [Vote] Who did 911? - page 17. (Read 63039 times)

Wrong.

There were no armed jets available and in the air.

The several jets that were in the air were not given instructions to ram the hijacked aircraft.

I personally think this was correct, given that the history of hijacked aircraft had never been to use them as missiles.

Yes this is a crucial part and fact of the evidence, Air force is to be the ready to anything, they have deployments of tactics thatt shoudl be kinda "instant".

But they were told not to interact, this all could have been stopped , there were even jets on air that were told to not get involved.

So why if you country had a chance and knew that and were the planes were why on earth would you pull back your defences that are specially trained for this situations.

if you can't smell the bullcrap that the goverment is given then people who are this blind is part of the terrorism and are terrorists  because they are capable of doing anything if they are told so to do.

Perhaps non-U.S. terrorists played a part, but they couldn't have done anything if the U.S. Air Force had not been temporarily deactivated from the inside. Thus it was more than simply executed by foreign terrorists. It was also executed by American terrorists in government and the military.

There are many conspiracy theories out there that supports this argument. I also believe it was insiders job planned by us govt but executed by terrorists

If you want to go down that avenue.

We now know that all of Yassir Arafat's communications were intercepted and all of his organized plans were known before they became acts. In other words it was all organized theater.

We now know that all of the "radical" left organizations that  created havoc in the 70s were thoroughly infiltrated, and in some cases led by our intelligence agencies who let the plans go through not to maintain the integrity of sources but for other reasons.

We know this type of horseshit continues up to the present day, a recent string of murders in Germany comes to mind, and we know that these morons are still trying to manage how these acts they lead are portrayed in the media. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/former-neo-nazi-informant-sheds-new-light-on-nsu-murders-a-955787.html

You've mentioned this Jew/Muslim/US Gov/Opium trade conspiracy theory multiple times, but really never had any proof. 

However, this ignores the entire drift of the followers of Sayyid Qutb since the 1970s, notably and recently Bin Laden.  There was never any hiding what they did.  Just like there was never any hiding of the hundreds of terrorist actions by Yassir Arafat.

He means 'the clever people' of each religion.

The problem for Jews, as a religious group, is that instead of cleaning house they pile all their filth into a heap and don't spray it with perfume.

The Catholics use perfume.

The other Christians use perfume.

The Muslims just kind of look around and say "wasn't me".

But the Jews say "fuck off" and that doesn't fly.

No intelligent person would say that somehow killing thousands of innocent people was a "Jewish" or "Muslim" act, a lot of people say that but read the first three words.

~~~~~

The first thing to ask is whether the individuals behind 911 deliberately set it up so that these various groups, Muslims, Zios etc would be identified, or whether the various groups were exposed only by the brilliance of the general public.

With the Muslim hijackers of course the answer is obvious. They did not try to hide the fact that there were Muslims of a certain political enthusiasm involved. But a person should ask "is it a little too obvious"? "Is there a little too much evidence", for example the passports and similar papers that were in the hijackers pockets but mysteriously survived the crashes in NYC and PA even when the hijackers bodies did not.

With the Zios again, same question. There is quite a bit of evidence that Zios were involved. In fact there seems to be almost a little too much evidence.

With corrupt elements in the U.S. govt likewise.

A person would like to say "I am so smart, I see the evidence that this and that group was involved". But a person is looking at evidence which seems to be a little too obvious. That should make a person look for other variables, like the context.

911 occurred suddenly as the Taliban were set to announce that opium had been eradicated from their country. It was quickly followed by an invasion that brought opium back up to commercial levels again.

Are there Jews and Muslims involved in the opium trade? Sure.

Do crooked people in various countries use the opium trade as a tool to leverage political interests? Sure.

Do those people act on behalf of all of the people who share their country / religion / etc?

The Muslims?

Well USA goverment is not even governed by your president, did you know that FEDERAL BANK OR RESERVE is a private institution, that make loans to the Govemerment, USA is in deep debt to the private banking of their own institution.

There are several factors making statements that Terrorism is something made up by the states.

Al qaeda was funded by the states.

ISIS was funded by the states.


The Liers always needs to make explanation, that's why you have never seen islamic / arab countries claiming non truth as they do not need to make any statemens, aslong the mentality of the people is clean that they are not guilty is enough.



Guilty always makes excuses, it's commong fact/sense.



The only ones who makes profit of all this are the sames who have started and funded ww1 and ww2 , wich are the starters of comming ww3.

Always posing as the victims, always making shady deals trying to erase history, you sure know who i am talking about...

Read more about history, not from your own country but worldwide and you will notice that there is alot that do not make sense and don't even fit onto the book they are teaching you.

So why do you only have Islamic fundamentalists claiming they did it?

You are ascribing motives that make little sense.

Anything can happen, then you can look for a motive.

If one soldier fires one bullet across a border you can say his motive was to shoot the loudspeaker blaring propaganda, or to cancel one of his counterparts or whatever. One low level act with low level motives.

If 50,000 soldiers cross a frontier and lots of weapons are used then it isn't reasonable to ascribe low level motives like  "shooting a loudspeaker" or whatever.

There were several groups involved in 911 at a lower level, Saudi crazies, Zio crazies, Obedient Americans etc. It is not reasonable to say the ubermotive for 911, the motive of the ones who assembled those groups, was the same as any one of those groups. At the top level the motive is always idealism of some sort. Hitler was an idealist, Stalin was an idealist. Always idealists who see big pictures but not little ones end up leaving bodies unnecessarily. However they are clever enough, as individuals, that it is very hard to identify them so they can be cancelled.

i bet you are from the states.

Media coverage is what the owners choose you to see, commercials is just what they choose you too see.

The marketing is mostly owned by few peoples even if they are different brand names the brand names are owned by bigger companies were those bigger companies are owned by even bigger companies.


The gold transaction was on the news few months before that month, and it was not gonna be taken on the world trade center but they were having a "safespot" on the parking basement i do not remeber exactly it was almost 15 years ago, but they were picking, leaving something or so, if you guys take your time to make research you will start find stuff about this.

Even if what you are saying is true, SO WHAT?

Media coverage doesn't have to be what you want.  Media coverage is kind of what the viewers will tolerate so they can jam commercials at them.

Do you have any proof for this? Why should the physical gold transaction take place in the World Trade Center? As far as I know, no significant amount of bullion used to pass through the World Trade Center. Some trade deals involving bullion might have got finalized in the World Trade Center, but the movement of physical gold occurred far away.

haha yeah, but the media coverage was so limited even to zero covereage about this, though it was covered days before it happening.

Many do not know that there was a monetary transaction made that day, most think about the tragedy but it goes way deeper.

Even as it was an excuse to get into irak to get their oil and gold aswell, even destroy history wich ISIS is doing right now.

No it has not been made to disappear. 

Your comment proves that.

Please remember that there was GOLD, one of the biggest GOLD transaction was to be made that day at the World Tradecenter.
there was 4 armored vehicles moving this gold that was never ever retrieved and even has been covered by media to dissapear.

OK.

Well, that's honest.

Certainly I have no problem with that. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVpSBUgbxBU

then comes power with that much money
every person that gets in power lines there own pockets or gives the best government contracts to there own people..
RULE 1 LOOK AFTER YOURSELF FIRST if you got kids your going to make sure there ok forever fact..
we are all human..this is why bush said money trumps peace..well lets look at it like this
if someone robs a house for money..money as trumped peace..if someone sells smack to his own brother.which people do in every day life..money trumps peace..if a friend owes you money and you need it..money trumps peace..
but i have no proof for motive i can only speculate
av a nice day spendy we will still be going on about this for the next 5 years or more   

I wonder if any of those hijackers who are still alive, but were reported to have died in the crashes, received any money or power from doing the 9/11 things that they didn't even know were happening while they did them.