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.
Options
A new 9/11 conspiracy theory
Former 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
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
0
Comments
And as for the Iran conspiracy theory, my reaction is only :rolleyes:.
Made me
Some people just love a good scandal! Shame on the governments for NOT blowing themselves up.
I KNEW it, god damn.
I also heard that Lenin started the Hundered Years war... that crafty sod!
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.
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!
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.
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 ...
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.
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?
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.
Enlighten me. And make sure it's not one of the conspiracy theories that has been disproved again and again.
They've considered a similair plan in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag
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).
Why? There is no proof otherwise. Those conspiracy theorists have longs since been debunked by the physics of the plane hitting the building.
Why? No architect would have ever envisaged the type of heat that was required to bring the structure down.
I'm amazed that you find so much amazing! I suppose you think Diana was murdered on the orders of Prince Philip too?
:yes: :yes: :yes:
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
This one in particular is as chilling as is certain to be on to something. I mean, who do they take us for?
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.
It wouldn't open :crying:
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.
No problem:
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
:thumb: