Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

A new 9/11 conspiracy theory

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7361414.stm

Those loveable scamps in Al-Q are accusing Iran of being behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Me, I don't believe that Iran is behind the conspiracies any more than I believe the CIA orchestrated 9/11 - people are naturally guilible without any dark forces being at work
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Coming up in next week's edition of Conspiracy Theories That You Couldn't Make Up If You Tried - Mohamed Al Fayed makes sensational claims that Prince Philip and MI6 were responsible for the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

    And as for the Iran conspiracy theory, my reaction is only :rolleyes:.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, if it was iran, they would have boasted about it and been nuked by now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Coming up in next week's edition of Conspiracy Theories That You Couldn't Make Up If You Tried - Mohamed Al Fayed makes sensational claims that Prince Philip and MI6 were responsible for the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

    Made me :lol:

    Some people just love a good scandal! Shame on the governments for NOT blowing themselves up.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Coming up in next week's edition of Conspiracy Theories That You Couldn't Make Up If You Tried - Mohamed Al Fayed makes sensational claims that Prince Philip and MI6 were responsible for the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

    I KNEW it, god damn.

    I also heard that Lenin started the Hundered Years war... that crafty sod!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yea, bloody Iranians - always trying to steal the limelight.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm amazed that anyone can still believe a guy on a dyalisis machine in a cave attacked New York!
    I'm amazed anyone still believes a plane hit the pentagon.
    I'm amazed anyone can believe building seven fell demolition style just like the towers cos the central heating tank caught fire.
    I'm amazed so few people are not more up to date with the ever unfolding evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm amazed that anyone can still believe a guy on a dyalisis machine in a cave attacked New York!
    I'm amazed anyone still believes a plane hit the pentagon.
    I'm amazed anyone can believe building seven fell demolition style just like the towers cos the central heating tank caught fire.
    I'm amazed so few people are not more up to date with the ever unfolding evidence.

    Well Al-Q seem to think they planned it and they should know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well Al-Q seem to think they planned it and they should know.
    Says who?
    If there was a court case the evidence points only one way ...to the biggest conspiracy ever perpetrated by a western government.
    The amount of lies and deception are ever more obvious.
    I seem to remember arguing in this place that Bush was leading us to war on a pile of horse shit ...cos thats where all the evidence was pointing well before the invasion took place but no ...they wouldn't lie to us!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Well Al-Q seem to think they planned it and they should know.

    Wrong.

    It was planned by the Chinese. Blamed on Al-Q by the US. Not orcastrated as we are led to believe. And there was definatley a big cover-up of whatever really went on.

    Doubt we'll know the truth ever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »

    Doubt we'll know the truth ever.
    We will ...it is more or less out there now.
    Curious ...which side of the fence were you on when ...some of us here were trying to point out the lies that were leading us to war in Iraq?
    Lies that have since become very obvious ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bullshit Rolly. For a start, if I was a president looking for justification for the Iraq war, I'm sure I could come up with a much better plan than to fly some jets into American buildings and blame it on a group of terrorists who's links with Iraq were tentative at best. Firing a few rockets at Israel and blaming it on Iraq would be a less idiotic scheme. You can accuse Bush of using the situation to his advantage to do something he hoped to do long before the attacks, but to suggest that he orchestrated the whole thing is delusional, not to mention a gross overestimation of the competancy of the American government.

    ETA: on the main article, Al Queida aren't accusing Iran of being behind the Israel 9-11 rumours at all. They say that Iran perpetuated the rumours.
    In response to a question about persistent rumours in the Middle East that Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Zawahiri said the rumour had begun on the Hezbollah television station, Al-Manar.

    "The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history, he said.

    "Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bullshit Rolly. For a start, if I was a president looking for justification for the Iraq war, I'm sure I could come up with a much better plan than to fly some jets into American buildings and blame it on a group of terrorists who's links with Iraq were tentative at best..
    It was far more than blaming Iraq. It was changing the course of history.
    It was about America having permanent bases in the middle east ...they aint pulling out honest. It was about instilling fear in the American population for a change in political direction.
    Did you know ...when Reagan and Gorbachov signed the missile treaty in Helsinki ...Gorby turned to Raygun and said ...'Now your going to have to find yourself a new enemy' ...cos of the nature of America being a military industrial complex ...with all that implies ...and Raygun smiled and said ...'we've got that covered'.
    The war was lies lies lies ...it had been planned before 9/11 and i don't think anyone actualy disputes that any longer. Surely YOU don't dispute the lies that led us to war?
    Have you looked at the up to date evidence for 9/11?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was far more than blaming Iraq. It was changing the course of history.
    It was about America having permanent bases in the middle east ...they aint pulling out honest. It was about instilling fear in the American population for a change in political direction.
    Did you know ...when Reagan and Gorbachov signed the missile treaty in Helsinki ...Gorby turned to Raygun and said ...'Now your going to have to find yourself a new enemy' ...cos of the nature of America being a military industrial complex ...with all that implies ...and Raygun smiled and said ...'we've got that covered'.
    If the cold war proved anything, it proved that you don't need any violence to actually happen to get people to live in fear. Presumably Al Quieda are in on this conspiracy too, and are living in a studio in Hollywood painted to look like a cave? Sorry, but I don't share your anti-Americanism, and subsequent willingness to believe anything you would like to believe on inadequate evidence. I suppose Elvis is still alive is he?
    The war was lies lies lies ...it had been planned before 9/11 and i don't think anyone actualy disputes that any longer. Surely YOU don't dispute the lies that led us to war?
    Which ones? I saw a lot of exaggeration of threats, and good old fashioned government hypocracy. Not so many outright lies. The 45 minute claim is the only outright lie I can think of. I don't trust any politician who voted for the war, and now is jumping on the no-WMD populist bangwagon since the war has turned out to be a cock up. Sorry, but the WMD justification still stands, so anyone who's changed their mind so flippantly is a joke imo. Incidentally, you may have noticed that shortly after the invasion of Iraq, we recieved a call from Libya wanting to open up diplomatic discussions? You know why that was? Because Libya was sold all of their weapons by Iraq. I was against the war because I didn't think the justification given was enough to go to war at that point, and for other political and tactical reasons, not because the justification wasn't true. Saddam had committed genocide, he had invaded a neighbouring country, he had provided international terrorists with diplomatic passports, and he had used illegal chemical weapons on his own people. I don't think that is justification for us invading at that point (especially the US and the UK by themselves), but I don't deny those facts.
    Have you looked at the up to date evidence for 9/11?
    Enlighten me. And make sure it's not one of the conspiracy theories that has been disproved again and again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bullshit Rolly. For a start, if I was a president looking for justification for the Iraq war, I'm sure I could come up with a much better plan than to fly some jets into American buildings and blame it on a group of terrorists who's links with Iraq were tentative at best.

    They've considered a similair plan in the past:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    more:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm amazed that anyone can still believe a guy on a dyalisis machine in a cave attacked New York!

    He wasn't at the time. ANyway, it happened so soon after Bush arrived in the Whitehouse. Something like that would take many years to plan and he wouldn't have had the time or the resources to do it (even secretly).
    I'm amazed anyone still believes a plane hit the pentagon.

    Why? There is no proof otherwise. Those conspiracy theorists have longs since been debunked by the physics of the plane hitting the building.
    I'm amazed anyone can believe building seven fell demolition style just like the towers cos the central heating tank caught fire.

    Why? No architect would have ever envisaged the type of heat that was required to bring the structure down.
    I'm amazed so few people are not more up to date with the ever unfolding evidence.

    I'm amazed that you find so much amazing! I suppose you think Diana was murdered on the orders of Prince Philip too? :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a load of bullshit Rolly. For a start, if I was a president looking for justification for the Iraq war, I'm sure I could come up with a much better plan than to fly some jets into American buildings and blame it on a group of terrorists who's links with Iraq were tentative at best. Firing a few rockets at Israel and blaming it on Iraq would be a less idiotic scheme. You can accuse Bush of using the situation to his advantage to do something he hoped to do long before the attacks, but to suggest that he orchestrated the whole thing is delusional, not to mention a gross overestimation of the competancy of the American government.

    :yes: :yes: :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BlackArab wrote: »

    Yeah, but all this is small scale stuff really. Planning the murder of 3000 of their own citizens, including some of the brightest names in business and finance, the risk to their economy, etc is a 'setup' too far. Why not just blow up a shopping mall? Much easier and would probably require less planning and training. And you wouldn't need to find 17 Muslim fundamentalists to volunteer for the mission.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which ones? I saw a lot of exaggeration of threats, and good old fashioned government hypocracy. Not so many outright lies. The 45 minute claim is the only outright lie I can think of. I don't trust any politician who voted for the war, and now is jumping on the no-WMD populist bangwagon since the war has turned out to be a cock up. Sorry, but the WMD justification still stands, so anyone who's changed their mind so flippantly is a joke imo. Incidentally, you may have noticed that shortly after the invasion of Iraq, we recieved a call from Libya wanting to open up diplomatic discussions? You know why that was? Because Libya was sold all of their weapons by Iraq. I was against the war because I didn't think the justification given was enough to go to war at that point, and for other political and tactical reasons, not because the justification wasn't true. Saddam had committed genocide, he had invaded a neighbouring country, he had provided international terrorists with diplomatic passports, and he had used illegal chemical weapons on his own people. I don't think that is justification for us invading at that point (especially the US and the UK by themselves), but I don't deny those facts.
    [

    I don't want to descend this thread into another Iraq war tit-for-tat, and to be fair i agree in part, but as far i'm aware they haven't actually found the WMDs that we went to war on the premise of - so i guess the exaggeration claim still stands, for we surely exaggerated the fact they existed.

    I do want to pull you up on the "he committed genocide" et al. Now he surely did. However, the crimes we eventually trussed him up on were from the 80s and we'd happily been selling him weapons and letting him get on with things ever since. It takes an extraordinary level or twisted reasoning to believe that suddenly, 20 years later, we had an attack of conscience. He was a cunt, but lets not delude ourselves, him being a cunt was simply convenient meat for the hounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Yeah, but all this is small scale stuff really. Planning the murder of 3000 of their own citizens, including some of the brightest names in business and finance, the risk to their economy, etc is a 'setup' too far. Why not just blow up a shopping mall? Much easier and would probably require less planning and training. And you wouldn't need to find 17 Muslim fundamentalists to volunteer for the mission.

    I keep an open mind about it tbh. Its hard to imagine a conspiracy as you say but if someone was going to plan one, surely it would be better to make it so large and outrageous? Yes I can't (and don't want to) imagine a Government murdering that many of their own citizens, therefore it is easier theoretically for them to get away with it if they had done it.

    Its hard for us to imagine why a parent would hurt their own offspring but it happens regulary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do want to pull you up on the "he committed genocide" et al. Now he surely did. However, the crimes we eventually trussed him up on were from the 80s and we'd happily been selling him weapons and letting him get on with things ever since. It takes an extraordinary level or twisted reasoning to believe that suddenly, 20 years later, we had an attack of conscience. He was a cunt, but lets not delude ourselves, him being a cunt was simply convenient meat for the hounds.

    When you say we who do you mean, because if you mean the US and UK they hadn't been (and indeed during the 80s the amount of US and UK weapons before the Kurds genocide was pretty miniscule).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suppose the issue for me is that how on EARTH do you keep something so huge and so shocking, a secret? Does it mean that every member of what must be a large team, be a bunch of cold-hearted killers - who will never show remorse and leak the details?

    The fact that your examples are out in teh open, is because this kind of information does get out and is very hard to keep secret ... and there is NOTHING out there regarding ANY evidence for this being the case for 9/11.

    I do agree with you that, perhaps, small scale manipulation of events surely does go on. But on this scale? Personally, I don't believe it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BlackArab wrote: »

    I've never understood why Operation Northwoods (an operation which never took place) is used as evidence for one that did. Especially given Northwoods talks about faking an airline crash, not actually destroying a civilian airliner full of civilians
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When you say we who do you mean, because if you mean the US and UK they hadn't been (and indeed during the 80s the amount of US and UK weapons before the Kurds genocide was pretty miniscule).

    The US and UK provided Saddam with weapons, monetary aid and military intelligence during the Iran-Iraq war - which IIRC lasted most of the 80s.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some conspiracy theories are loony. Others are quite plausible. And one or two of them are almost certainly true.
    This one in particular is as chilling as is certain to be on to something. I mean, who do they take us for?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From the Northwoods document:

    8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

    FG Yes, you're right never carried out but evidence nonetheless that the unthinkable can be and was considered by senior military and government personnel.

    Teagan, the evidence for Northwoods wasn't revealed for 35 years. The Tuskegee Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_experiment which did happen was kept quiet for 40 years. Its not that difficult to keep these things quiet. Just difficult for people like us to understand how it can be done. The fact is its sometimes easier to get away with a huge lie than a small one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Some conspiracy theories are loony. Others are quite plausible. And one or two of them are almost certainly true.
    This one in particular is as chilling as is certain to be on to something. I mean, who do they take us for?

    It wouldn't open :crying:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US and UK provided Saddam with weapons, monetary aid and military intelligence during the Iran-Iraq war - which IIRC lasted most of the 80s.

    SIPRI calculates US arms sales 1973-90 as 0.5% of the total (and none after 1986), the UK was even less

    It provided some intelligence, to stop Iran, but the main recipient of intelligence was Israel who used it to bomb the Iraqi reactor.

    I've not heard about money - unless you mean continued buying of Iraqi oil supplies.

    The idea that Iraq was a close ally of the US isn't really supported. The US position is probably summarised best as 'it's a shame both sides can't loose' and their position was to make sure neither Iraq or Iran got the upper hand.

    I passed through Kuwait in the early 90's - plenty of wrecked eastern bloc equipment. Didn't see one piece of US or UK kit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BlackArab wrote: »
    It wouldn't open :crying:

    No problem:

    Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack

    1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

    2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

    3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

    4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

    5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?

    thepetbantha.jpg

    6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

    7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

    8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the subject of Arms and Iraq before 1990 I'd recommend this:

    http://kentimmerman.com/tdl.htm

    On the hunt for WMD's by the UN inspectors this is very revealing:

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=saPBlBJPKggC&dq=scott+ritter&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=FHTXRVdzIe&sig=bWDBhpOL65veUNKT8ylWmsG-mV8#PPA310,M1
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No problem:

    :thumb: :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.