Something VERY fishy about 9/11 2001...

[Lemon Harpic]

Does anybody actually have any figures of the amount of oil the yanks are taking off Iraq.

1.25 million barrels of oil per day are already being taken from Iraq, with the majority ending up in the Land of the Free, and the rest mainly going to the UK, France and Russia.

The multinational "Big Oil" companies like ExxonMobil, BP, Shell Oil, ChevronTexaco and Conoco Phillips have already started to buy up Iraq's oilfields. This means that in effect the amount of Iraq's oil taken by the USA will be 100%.

[kenny]

If its of any interest to all you conspiracy theorists, i followed the link posted by lemon harpic and from a structural point of view the conspiracies hold as much water as a collunder. I didnt watch the video in question but i have watched some of Farenheit 911 (not all, its terrible!!), and the conspiracies raised are mostly circumstantial nonsense. Most of them are as plausable as someone accusing me of mudering John Lennon because i happened to be listening to one of his records at the time of his murder.

Im not saying the US is blameless in the worlds problems but i do feel people look for conspiracies that are not there purely because of prejudices against the US. Sadly mindless speculation such as this (IMO) will only fuel ill feeling towards them, maybe there would be a reduction in foreign insurgents in Iraq trying to pull the country into anarchy were there to be less speculation of this type.

Please note, these are just my opinions and i am not trying to inflame an argument!!

[Lemon Harpic]

Sadly mindless speculation such as this (IMO) will only fuel ill feeling towards them, maybe there would be a reduction in foreign insurgents in Iraq trying to pull the country into anarchy were there to be less speculation of this type.

I'm so outraged by something I read on Foxestalk that I'm going to Iraq to shoot at American soldiers!

[kenny]

I'm so outraged by something I read on Foxestalk that I'm going to Iraq to shoot at American soldiers!

Im flying over to switzerland tonight and i'll be knocking on Swiss Foxes door.

[MC Prussian]

Im flying over to switzerland tonight and i'll be knocking on Swiss Foxes door.

Problem is, I don't live there.

[Bluefoxtim]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...+towers&pl=true

[leicester1884]

Anybody who seriously believes that Bush or the American Government set-up the whole 9/11 terrorist attacks needs sectioning under the Mental Health Act IMHO

[Gamesmaster]

Alright you've all managed to find fault in one of my points.

read the rest of it. If you want to go to war with Iraq, why fit up Osama Bin Laden as the attacker. If Osama bin Ladens being paid for taking the blame, why have him hiding in Afganistan instead of Iraq. The whole Afgansistan war is pointless and needn't of taken place. If the American govenmant had planned 9/11 It wouldn't of.

Does anybody actually have any figures of the amount of oil the yanks are taking off Iraq.

fitting up obl is just an excuse, but they american government have been after him since 1998, i supposse many forgot, but makes you wonder why the CIA official didnt get him in july 2001?

what makes you think obl hiding in afganistan? because the media tell you that?

is it a conspiracy theory that al qaeda blew the twin towers up

kenny: "Im not saying the US is blameless in the worlds problems but i do feel people look for conspiracies that are not there purely because of prejudices against the US."

i dont hate the US, i quite like them, and although im not 100% sure in this "conspiracy", i am aware of evidence that suggests they are atleast partly to blame.

[shen]

Anybody who seriously believes that Bush or the American Government set-up the whole 9/11 terrorist attacks needs sectioning under the Mental Health Act IMHO

Anybody who immediatly dismisses the idea without paying attention to the facts (or lack of) presented should not be allowed to post such a comment, IMHO.

Notice the thread's name says that 'somethings fishy' and whichever way you turn it, there is something very fishy about it. There is no proof that the American Government (it's wrong already to accuse the whole government) had set up 9/11, but there are things that have stayed unanswered. It is clear that some high ranking people turned a blind eye when it happened, whether it was intentional or 'simple' ignorance, is of course debatable, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is and should be held responsible for lack of preventive action and should therefore be classed as incompetent. The fishy thing is that too many suspicious things have happened, and too many key questions have been intentionally avoided, so someone has something to hide.

Hence, please come with a more considered comment the next time you wish to brand sceptic people as mental patients.

[kenny]

Anybody who immediatly dismisses the idea without paying attention to the facts (or lack of) presented should not be allowed to post such a comment, IMHO.

Notice the thread's name says that 'somethings fishy' and whichever way you turn it, there is something very fishy about it. There is no proof that the American Government (it's wrong already to accuse the whole government) had set up 9/11, but there are things that have stayed unanswered. It is clear that some high ranking people turned a blind eye when it happened, whether it was intentional or 'simple' ignorance, is of course debatable, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is and should be held responsible for lack of preventive action and should therefore be classed as incompetent. The fishy thing is that too many suspicious things have happened, and too many key questions have been intentionally avoided, so someone has something to hide.

Hence, please come with a more considered comment the next time you wish to brand sceptic people as mental patients.

The worst thing the US government can be accused of IMO, is that they were too arrogant to contemplate that a bunch of people from afganistan were capable of causing attrocities on that sort of scale. I have to say i would be highly offended were i an American reading this thread.

[MC Prussian]

The worst thing the US government can be accused of IMO, is that they were too arrogant to contemplate that a bunch of people from afganistan were capable of causing attrocities on that sort of scale. I have to say i would be highly offended were i an American reading this thread.

But you're not and you can't speak for others.

I, however, have met various Americans and am still living with two American classmates. The general consensus in the U.S. supports a conspiracy.

Think of it what you want but from what I read, you still believe Al-Qu'aeda is behind all of this. Think again.

[leicester1884]

Anybody who immediatly dismisses the idea without paying attention to the facts (or lack of) presented should not be allowed to post such a comment, IMHO.

Notice the thread's name says that 'somethings fishy' and whichever way you turn it, there is something very fishy about it. There is no proof that the American Government (it's wrong already to accuse the whole government) had set up 9/11, but there are things that have stayed unanswered. It is clear that some high ranking people turned a blind eye when it happened, whether it was intentional or 'simple' ignorance, is of course debatable, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is and should be held responsible for lack of preventive action and should therefore be classed as incompetent. The fishy thing is that too many suspicious things have happened, and too many key questions have been intentionally avoided, so someone has something to hide.

Hence, please come with a more considered comment the next time you wish to brand sceptic people as mental patients.

It's called freedom of speech.

Anyway, who's immediatly dismissed the idea without paying any attention to the 'facts'??

I have read many articles, watched several documentaries & watched many video's on the net concerning 9/11.

All I did was state that you must be out of your mind to believe the US Government planned 9/11.

And I'll stand by that.

[leicester1884]

I, however, have met various Americans and am still living with two American classmates. The general consensus in the U.S. supports a conspiracy.

All boils down to matter of opinion.

I have visited the USA several times since 9/11 & have family living out there & that is not a general consenus I have come across.

[shen]

The worst thing the US government can be accused of IMO, is that they were too arrogant to contemplate that a bunch of people from afganistan were capable of causing attrocities on that sort of scale. I have to say i would be highly offended were i an American reading this thread.

First of all, the bunch of people accused of being responsible for these terrorist attacks, were Saudi Arabian and not Afghans. Second of all, what SINGLE proof is there that these alleged people were in faact behind this attack? Third of all, news media were pointing the finger towards Osama Bin Laden unbelievably quickly after the incidents, so fast that any one with common sense would and should have been suspicious. It should come as no coincidence that Fox News were (I believe) the first ones to broadcast that 'news'...

I would most definitely be offended as an American too if I read this thread, and I'd be asking a lot of questions about my government as a result!

It's called freedom of speech.

Anyway, who's immediatly dismissed the idea without paying any attention to the 'facts'??

I have read many articles, watched several documentaries & watched many video's on the net concerning 9/11.

All I did was state that you must be out of your mind to believe the US Government planned 9/11.

And I'll stand by that.

It is called freedom of speech, hence why I said 'IMHO' just like you expressed your view that people contemplating the possibility of a self-inflicted terrorist attack are mental patients, 'in your humble opinion.

And you dismiss the idea that it might be a staged and planned attack, from people (not necessarily directly in the US government) that were high-ranking Americans. I'm here hinting to the unanswered questions in the 9/11 Commission report, the direct lies about the Pentagon and Flight 93 'plane crashes', the inaccuracies about the cause of the Twin Tower collapses etc. etc.

If you did indeed watch many, at least partially objective, videos, then I frankly cannot comprehend how you can so easily dismiss the thought of a conspiracy.

It's taking the easy way out, and naively believing what a bunch of biased politicians and businessmen with distinct economic interests in the post-9/11 unfoldings, have said in public.

You can stand by it, but if you want to continue this discussion, I challenge you to come with some credible material of why and how you can dismiss most of the suspicion towards the 'US government'.

[Gamesmaster]

All I did was state that you must be out of your mind to believe the US Government planned 9/11.

why, they needed an excuse to wage an ilegal war for oil, because the worlds oil reserves are fading and americos ecomony relies heavily on it. what better way to achieve this than to place fear into the minds of their electrate that al kida are going to kill em, and by miracle, guess who sticks their hand up and shouted "we`ll protect you", yes you guessed, the americon government, but at a price of course 2,783 people

think ahead dude

you`al have a nice day now

[lookwhaticando]

Problem is, I don't live there.

Quite so. I notice you live in Canada - the country where over 80% of the population detest Mr. Bush with a passion.

Is it purely coincidence that you live (were born?) in Canada and take serious interest in a conspiracy theory which suggests that Bush is a truly revolting man who apparently used incredibly perverted means to reach some self-fulfilling ends?

Regarding the eyewitnesses who say it was a cargo aircraft. A plane travelling 500mph at an altitude of less than a few thousand feet goes flying past you - it's painted a nice darkish grey and there would be little light coming from inside the aircraft. How in hell did you manage to see that a hundred 2 foot tall windows did not exist on an aircraft in those circumstances? Surely something moving that quickly before you would just be a blur to you.

Oh and another thing. United Airlines was in this, were they? And American Airlines too?

United and American lost two aircraft each - not cheap to replace. United and American were already suffering financially before 9-11, and for United it helped push them over the edge and into bankruptcy. They bled billions and billions of dollars. They sacked tens of thousands of employees (as did American) - which adds ever increasing numbers to those whose lives were hit as a result of 9-11.

Why would a commercial entity allow two of its aircraft to be destroyed? Their insurance costs rose, as did everyone in the entire airline industry. Perhaps the Government paid for the planes. But United's insurance costs still rose - so it was just as damaging to them either way.

And if United was in on this with the Goverment - why did United get turned down for a bridging loan from the Airline Stabilisation committee. Surely the goverment would have been only too pleased to help keep afloat an airline that helped with such a scheme - especially as there's a chance that if the business failed, people might feel compelled to tell the whole story.

A conspiracy this large would need the cooperation of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, comprising: entire goverment departments and their staff. The 'victims' who were claimed to have been on these mystery planes, and their immediate families at the very least. The Federal Aviation Authority. The NY Emergency services, the NY Port authority. The two involved Airlines - their senior management at the very least, and possibly the accounting department.

Something tells me that's highly unlikely.

Besides, people that fantasize about this kinda thing are generally sick bastards at best.

As for the whole 'war for oil' idea ... it doesn't wash. So what if US, UK and French firms buy into Iraq (it's costing them money to do this, remember) - it doesn't mean they plan to pump a load of oil and ship it back to its own country for consumption. It's not uncommon for a firm from one nation to invest in another and sell the goods on to a third nation.

[Lemon Harpic]

As for the whole 'war for oil' idea ... it doesn't wash. So what if US, UK and French firms buy into Iraq (it's costing them money to do this, remember) - it doesn't mean they plan to pump a load of oil and ship it back to its own country for consumption. It's not uncommon for a firm from one nation to invest in another and sell the goods on to a third nation.

I agree with you that 9/11 was probably not an inside job.

However, on Iraq you seem not to have your facts straight. The US and UK are already pumping a load of oil and shipping it back to their countries for consumption.

Why do you imagine that the Allies invaded Iraq, if not for oil?

[MC Prussian]

Quite so. I notice you live in Canada - the country where over 80% of the population detest Mr. Bush with a passion.

Where did you get the 80 percent from? I was talking about regular American citizens, nothing else. What does that have to do with Canada?

Is it purely coincidence that you live (were born?) in Canada and take serious interest in a conspiracy theory which suggests that Bush is a truly revolting man who apparently used incredibly perverted means to reach some self-fulfilling ends?

I'm studying in Canada (I graduate from VFS in a few weeks), but am originally from Switzerland. And either there is a conspiracy or there is none - please refrain from using such an unoriginal term like "conspiracy theory". And who says Bush is behind this? I never did (you should read this thread a bit more carefully). He's basically a puppet and that's what American Presidents have been ever since the American military involvement in WWI (with a few exceptions). I say warfare=playground for sick kids=lots of money=dollars for the military industry. Does that make sense to you?

Regarding the eyewitnesses who say it was a cargo aircraft. A plane travelling 500mph at an altitude of less than a few thousand feet goes flying past you - it's painted a nice darkish grey and there would be little light coming from inside the aircraft. How in hell did you manage to see that a hundred 2 foot tall windows did not exist on an aircraft in those circumstances? Surely something moving that quickly before you would just be a blur to you.

You would have to ask the concerning eyewitness regarding that fact. I'm not a spokesperson, sorry.

Oh and another thing. United Airlines was in this, were they? And American Airlines too?

United and American lost two aircraft each - not cheap to replace. United and American were already suffering financially before 9-11, and for United it helped push them over the edge and into bankruptcy. They bled billions and billions of dollars. They sacked tens of thousands of employees (as did American) - which adds ever increasing numbers to those whose lives were hit as a result of 9-11.

Again, it's not proven that the planes that hit the WTC were commercial.

Why would a commercial entity allow two of its aircraft to be destroyed? Their insurance costs rose, as did everyone in the entire airline industry. Perhaps the Government paid for the planes. But United's insurance costs still rose - so it was just as damaging to them either way.

I don't have to repeat myself, do I?

And if United was in on this with the Goverment - why did United get turned down for a bridging loan from the Airline Stabilisation committee. Surely the goverment would have been only too pleased to help keep afloat an airline that helped with such a scheme - especially as there's a chance that if the business failed, people might feel compelled to tell the whole story.

A conspiracy this large would need the cooperation of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, comprising: entire goverment departments and their staff. The 'victims' who were claimed to have been on these mystery planes, and their immediate families at the very least. The Federal Aviation Authority. The NY Emergency services, the NY Port authority. The two involved Airlines - their senior management at the very least, and possibly the accounting department.

Wait a second - you call me a theorist and at the same time come up with a plot like this? Who says an operation of this scale required the involvement of that many people?

Something tells me that's highly unlikely.

I suggest you watch the three videos mentionned in this thread and get back to me after that.

Besides, people that fantasize about this kinda thing are generally sick bastards at best.

Who says I'm fantasizing? I'm not making this up. And don't insult my intelligence. You're only ridiculing yourself with such a statement.

As for the whole 'war for oil' idea ... it doesn't wash. So what if US, UK and French firms buy into Iraq (it's costing them money to do this, remember) - it doesn't mean they plan to pump a load of oil and ship it back to its own country for consumption. It's not uncommon for a firm from one nation to invest in another and sell the goods on to a third nation.

I could call you naive for saying that.

[lookwhaticando]

A poll conducted in Canada regarding the American presidential election came up with the 80% figure. It was said that 80% were for John Kerry's election, primarily because they didn't want Bush.

As for my own little 'plot' I'm just taking the theory you've presented and run with it a little - just to see how easily it can be expanded. Just goes to show you where things like this can lead. You consider one particular avenue in the theory - the planes which have disappeared from the airlines fleets, and it can easily balloon into an even bigger theory while still seeming vital to the original. If you're going to make planes dissappear, it's not just as easy as saying "it's gone" - there's other gov't departments that would need to be in on it.

"Again, it's not proven that the planes that hit the WTC were commercial."

But it hasn't been disproven. In science you never actually prove anything, you just fail to disprove it. There's been no solid evidence yet that disproves the idea that the aircraft involved was commercial - so it's still an acceptable belief, until proven beyond doubt to be otherwise. And until you've disproven the commercial airliner theory, you can't prove ('fail to disprove' more accurately) any other theories.

Until somebody can demonstrate evidence which completely disproves the theory that the aircraft that hit tower 2 was commercial, I won't be buying the story that it was a freighter.

"Who says I'm fantasizing? I'm not making this up."

I didn't say you were. But somebody did. You're just passing it on for consumption by others.

[Gamesmaster]

United and American lost two aircraft each - not cheap to replace. United and American were already suffering financially before 9-11, and for United it helped push them over the edge and into bankruptcy. They bled billions and billions of dollars. They sacked tens of thousands of employees (as did American) - which adds ever increasing numbers to those whose lives were hit as a result of 9-11.

And you think the american government give a sheite

Why would a commercial entity allow two of its aircraft to be destroyed?

What makes you think they allowed it

As for the whole 'war for oil' idea ... it doesn't wash. So what if US, UK and French firms buy into Iraq (it's costing them money to do this, remember) - it doesn't mean they plan to pump a load of oil and ship it back to its own country for consumption. It's not uncommon for a firm from one nation to invest in another and sell the goods on to a third nation.

Apart from entering into a war because someone attacks you, what would be in your eyes the next possible reason for entering into a war situation?

i give you a clue, northern ireland is run by the british government who collect taxes from the public.

[Lemon Harpic]

Apart from entering into a war because someone attacks you, what would be in your eyes the next possible reason for entering into a war situation?

i give you a clue, northern ireland is run by the british government who collect taxes from the public.

I don't get what you are trying to say here. The Allies invaded Iraq in order to collect tax money? So the US and UK spent billions in order to collect tax revenue from a country with a per capita GDP of only US$3,400 (UK per capita GDP is US$30,900)?

And even with Northern Ireland's tax revenue, the province ends up costing the British government more than £5 billion per year.

[kenny]

[Gamesmaster]

I don't get what you are trying to say here. The Allies invaded Iraq in order to collect tax money?

And even with Northern Ireland's tax revenue, the province ends up costing the British government more than £5 billion per year.

To make money, why else would you force an ilegal war. the western world use oil in enourmouse quantities, and theres a fear that the worlds oil reserves are running out. america has huge supplies, but they need assurance that their future is stable, for their super power status to continue. its not what you know now, its what you need to know long term, the general public dont think that way, governments and big business do.

It wouldn't be worth a government running NI at the time, if it didnt earn enough money. that said, if by now we dont make a profit there, its no reason to jump ship.

[Lemon Harpic]

To make money, why else would you force an ilegal war. the western world use oil in enourmouse quantities, and theres a fear that the worlds oil reserves are running out. america has huge supplies, but they need assurance that their future is stable, for their super power status to continue. its not what you know now, its what you need to know long term, the general public dont think that way, governments and big business do.

It wouldn't be worth a government running NI at the time, if it didnt earn enough money. that said, if by now we dont make a profit there, its no reason to jump ship.

I get you now. The oil is much more important than the tax revenues. In fact I doubt very much whether the Allies want to completely take over Iraq, which like Northern Ireland is running at a deficit. All they want is to ensure that a) Iraq's oil flows into the West and b) Iraq's eventual puppet government behaves itself (ie does whatever it's told to by the USA).

You're being a bit over-simplistic about Northern Ireland, though. I doubt that the province ever really generated a substantial profit, if any at all. The British government is stuck with NI because as a mainly protestant province it did not want to be part of an independant Catholic-dominated Irish republic. NI is part of the UK for political rather than economic reasons.

[Gamesmaster]

I get you now. The oil is much more important than the tax revenues.

the oil creates tax revenue. people need oil to get to work, in their millions, without that oil governments cant opperate, especially on a super state power status.

In fact I doubt very much whether the Allies want to completely take over Iraq

if it was financially and physically viable (depending on the iraq civil war and the need for oil in iran, its a extremely complex issue), then yes, but it doesnt look like it now. america not only needs future oil supply, they need to disable the middle east for fear they will over power israel and/or become a collective super power.

which like Northern Ireland is running at a deficit.

at the moment, NI doesnt make or brake the government bank balance, what it does do is give them the chance to test are up and coming troops, and their ideologies of life. Peter hain is currently trying to turn NI into a communistic state of britain.

The British government is stuck with NI because as a mainly protestant province it did not want to be part of an independant Catholic-dominated Irish republic. NI is part of the UK for political rather than economic reasons.

if you were the prime minister at the time when the northern irish wanted to vote in a british government, and you thought it was worth it unlike the current iraq, you`d say yes. iraq being the prime example to say no, yet were told were making great progress and the "people" there love us.