Question:
did the US government cause 9/11 so it had an excuse to invade iraq and afghanistan?
Astro B
2008-06-11 18:07:09 UTC
i am doing a school assignment on conspiracy theories involving the US government
Fourteen answers:
Hector of Troy
2008-06-11 18:16:40 UTC
I truly wish I can answer your question honestly, but every time I do answer questions like these, people report me for abuse, even though I am not abusive and only truthful.



The downside is that you will therefore never know the truth because censorship (and ignorance) on here is quite massive.



It is sad in the land of "freedom of speech" is it not?



Anyway, good luck with your assignment.



Try to google some international news articles to also get a foreign view, outside of the US.

Always look at more than one news source then form your own opinion.

:-)
anonymous
2008-06-13 23:14:30 UTC
Dude,



Get your hands on David Ray Griffin's book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page Lie"



Leave the Farenheit 9/11 baby video alone, that doesn't make an accusation at all about involvement by the US Gov.



Also, you'll find a couple videos on-line by the title of Loose Change, you've prolly already seen them. They have some good facts and questions in them.



If you want a mainstream bit of history, find a copy of the movie Flight 93 that aired on A&E (not the theatrical release United 93), and watch the last 2 minutes. The firefighters are arriving on the scene in Pennsylvania, and approach two FBI agents, asking where the wreckage is, to which the agents reply with something like "what wreckage? You find the damn plane"



The "official story" is so obviously fake that is sounds loony. Also check out the current petition drive in NYC to get a question on the ballot this fall to open a new independent full investigation on the WTC attacks.



Have fun with the assignment, don't let it depress you, our country has always done this to lead us into war. It has been shown conclusively many years later now that the USS Maine was sunk by an onboard detonation, to start the Spanish-American war.



The Lusitania was allowed to be sunk as a prelude to the US entering WWI.



The Gulf of Tonkin incident was found by our Congress to have been a lie, and it got us fully engaged in Vietnam.



The "babies in incubators" story that fired up Americans for the first Iraq war, is now known to be an outright lie.



It's what we do. Us normal americans don't like to go to war, so we have to be fooled into it.
anonymous
2016-04-02 09:33:07 UTC
This is an assignment? I had some radical liberal professors, but none openly asked for anti-govt biased papers. Simply put, there are no credible sources for such absurdity. You could quote Rosie who claims that steel has never been melted by fire (of course metal is ALWAYS melted by fire) Or you could site those who claim that our govt somehow put enough explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down (though it would take more than would go unnoticed, and the FACT that taking down WTC 7 in such a way would bring suspicion. Even my 13 year old daughter asked this question after hearing about the conspiracy theory about WTC 7, after she considered it. "If bringing down the 2 largest buildings was such an emotional impact, what purpose would they have had to bring down WTC 7? They did not need a larger impact, and it would only draw suspicion ot the govt., so why do people think that the govt would destroy such a brilliant plan with a detail so stupid?" So, my 13 year old makes more logical sense than the radical liberal conspiracy theorists. Finally, as to your war for oil theory...if this is the case, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO TAKE SOME OIL SO MY GAS PRICE CAN GO DOWN????? We have not touched a drop!!!! War for oil, and we leave the oil???? That claim is just stupid!!!!
The Violator!
2008-06-12 09:12:54 UTC
In short yes, I believe the evidence and logical case is overwhelming. For what it's worth I am also ex-British military and a former intelligence analyst with a 20+ year interest in terrorism.



There are plenty of good websites out there asking very serious questions - without any kind of reasonable answers, I suggest you start with the basics.



The US government has been at this kind of thing for a long time and it's interesting to note who has joined the opposition: this includes some former very senior US state department, military and intelligence figures including former intel briefers for President Reagan and Gen WIlliam Odom, former head of the NSA (who described Iraq as the 'greatest strategic disaster in US history').



Such people have impeccable reputations and a history of loyal, able service and specialist training, you wouldn't think they have any natural 'in-built' prejudice or axe to grind against the US government... back to the very basic questions then, when these people have seemingly nothing to gain and are prepared to risk their reputations you have to ask 'why' and not just come up with some silly knee-jerk rationale for it.



Someone else in your class will no doubt look at Pearl Harbor - I'd suggest a book called Spy, Counterspy by Dusko Popov as an excellent first hand source.



Another very insightful book indicating the longer term trends of US government secret foreign policy is Rogue State by William Blum (ex state department).... basically a long list of related facts and references to (mostly) official US archives. It's amazing reading, just as a list of facts.



... whenever you get government insiders who change their views against their governments policy I think there is always a very good reason for it which is worth investigating. It is usually done on principle.



Ask the basic / fundamental questions and you won't go far wrong.



Good luck...
Rob W
2008-06-14 09:42:17 UTC
Either they intentionally failed to intercept the planes, or they were directly involved, or both.



The government is lying about 9-11. That can be proven very easily. It isn't necessary to subscribe to any alternate theories to hold that view.



The government lies alone warrant a new investigation. The 9-11 investigation was a cover-up. The 9-11 Commission's goal was to justify the government's official fairy tale, and it chose to ignore the evidence that contracted the fairy tale.
torchedbyangels
2008-06-11 18:23:57 UTC
Yes. 9-11-01 is the day NESARA(look it up) was to be announced. It was also a mid-week Jewish holiday. It is clear that the media was in on it. Physical evidence and eyewitness accounts(those that were not changed under pressure) reveal a truer picture.



FDR wanted to bring America into WWII but the country was primarily against it. A major catastrophe was needed to change the mind of the nation(sound familiar?). Although Pearl Harbor was clearly not carried out by Americans, those in high places knew of Japanese intentions and did nothing to prevent it.



You might want to get a copy of the book The Committee of 300 which will help explain WHY such things have been done and continue to be done. Also look up the term"petrodollars" and know that Sadaam was ready to change from dollars to euros.
BJK Is Out of Here
2008-06-12 08:43:09 UTC
Among other reasons, a "9/11" like event was necessary to advance the geopolitical aspirations of some very evil people. For those aspirations to succeed, it was necessary to unite Americans behind a perceived threat.



9/11 was exploited to create the contrived war on terror to induce the American people to support the war plan and willingly give up civil liberties.



Watch Mike Ruppert's excellent film. He covers the potential geopolitical motivations for 9/11. He also covers related topics including the corruption and criminality at the top levels of government, both current and historical, which have a bearing on 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&hl=en



It is amazing that Mike Ruppert is still alive. Great efforts have been taken to silence him including false criminal charges, harassment, marginalization, ridicule and poisoning. He is not taking speaking engagements now.



Mike Ruppert also has a book out, "Crossing the Rubicon". Ruppert deflects his critics well with one statement: "why is it that these books have never been sued ... the truth is the perfect defense against libel."



Canadian film maker Barrie Zwicker also covers potential geopolitical motivations his film

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623&q



A good book is "The Grand Chessboard", written by Obama's sr. foreign policy adviser Brzezinski covering his geopolitical ideology for American supremacy over Eurasia (including the Middle East).



Brzezinski is not alone with those views. Look up his connections to the people that drive the Bush Administration foreign policy. Brzezinski "predicted" that a 9/11-like event would be required to move the geopolitical aspirations forward. That Brzezinski is of this mindset should be alarming for Obama supporters but not a reason to support McCain. The foreign policy "handlers" for both candidates were sewn from the same seed.



The evidence to support government complicity in 9/11 is extensive. See, for example, this compilation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm



For research ideas for your project, this listing "top 500" 9/11 questions may be helpful

http://www.rense.com/general24/t500.htm



Also investigate the history of the 9/11 Commission. It was a whitewash.



Don't waste your time looking to the corporate main stream media for information about 9/11. The media has covered the government's back since the beginning. Media ownership has been centralized in the hands of a few giant corporations. Those corporations and their major shareholders own other companies that profit from the war and the war on terror.



There is a great deal of cross-over in ownership and boards of directors of media, companies that profit from war/war on terror, and the Council on Foreign Relations and other globalist organizations.



The version of "realty" we get from the main stream media is whatever best suits their agenda for profit and power. This is a grave threat to democracy. Become media-wise, start here:-



General media:- http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media.asp

US media:-http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp
lambda2walk
2008-06-11 18:17:42 UTC
yes they did. bush or our government mostly bush had 9/11 occur so we could have an excuse to invade iraq. all WE want is the oil and gas
Ollie
2008-06-11 18:18:45 UTC
No, there is zero tangible evidence of these claims. If you're looking for an "original" conspiracy theory, talk about the only President known to lie under oath and guy's named Vince Foster, James McDougal, and Ron Brown.
Justme
2008-06-11 18:15:45 UTC
There was none. There your assignment is done



Not sure what state you are in but we pay 58 cents out of the dollar for education, and this is what we get??
yugiraphael
2008-06-12 15:50:01 UTC
Book Review: 9-11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press

By: atheo on: 11.06.2008 [00:40 ] (143 reads)



by Nikki Alexander

SOTT.NET

Sun, 08 Jun 2008



(9421 bytes) [c] Print

The mind of David Ray Griffin is refreshingly clear and logical. With his exceptional gift for discerning significant distinctions he has, once again, produced a meticulous critical analysis of documentary evidence that is astute and compelling. In "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press,"



Dr. Griffin presents a sequence of irrefutable facts drawn from documents and testimony that demonstrate twenty five internal contradictions in the official 9/11 story. As each contradiction is presented, the author juxtaposes documented timelines and official memos, eye-witness testimony, television broadcasts and news articles that are logically inconsistent with the narrative contrived by the 9/11 Commission.



Griffin objectively questions these contradictory narratives, some of them inherent within individual alibis, and observes that the Commission avoided confronting these inconsistencies by eliminating all mention of them in its report. Facts that could not be logically refuted were strategically omitted, thereby erasing from the historical record all evidence of possible perjury and complicity. Each chapter is devoted to one category of contradictions and ends with the request that Congress and the press investigate this inconsistency.



One of the most fascinating contradictions involves the whereabouts of principals on the morning of 9/11 during the critical hours between 9:00 -10:00 am. Public and internal records suggest that the timeline of events was adjusted by the Commission to place the principals at their command posts too late to protect the nation, too late to orchestrate a military response, too late to give stand-down orders, too late to give shootdown orders or to be otherwise guilty of collusion. The conflicting testimony of eye-witnesses such as Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and FAA officials, who placed the principals and military liaisons at their command posts well before the Commission's timeline did, was simply omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. The Commission's systematic timeline alteration and omission of incriminating evidence thereby suggest that its mission was damage control, a deliberate cover-up of government complicity in the crime. Griffin, however, does not make this charge; he simply presents the contradictions.



The Commission claimed that Vice President Cheney did not arrive in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center until 9:58. That claim was contradicted by the testimony of Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, who arrived at the PEOC around 9:20 where shortly thereafter he witnessed Cheney confirm an order that is most logically interpreted as an order not to shoot down an incoming object shortly before the Pentagon was struck. Richard Clarke's account in his book, "Against All Enemies," corroborates Mineta's timeline, which was evidently so threatening to the official story that Mineta's testimony was deleted from the 9/11 Commission video archives.



General Richard Myers contradicted his own story in several incarnations of his alibi as did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom claimed to be unaware of unfolding events when, according to Richard Clarke, they were both participating in a live video teleconference initiated by Clarke at about 9:10. Griffin skillfully analyzes these contradictory versions of events.



The Commission's claim that the FAA did not notify the military early enough to scramble jets was contradicted by the FAA's assertion that not only was a military liaison present throughout its nationwide alert but "within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center it immediately established several phone bridges that included.DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies." NORAD's original (September 18, 2001) timeline corroborated FAA statements as did military officers, such as the National Military Command Center's Brigadier General Montague Winfield and NORAD's Captain Michael Jellinek. One also learns from Richard Clarke that the "Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing." The 9/11 Commission's claim, therefore, would be laughable had the consequences of this lie not been so tragic.



Griffin presents extensive eye-witness accounts by firefighters, police officers, journalists and building workers who gave vivid reports of hearing and seeing powerful sequential explosions within all three of the World Trade Center skyscrapers prior to their collapse. Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint around 5:20 pm - an event that was anticipated and communicated to firefighters by Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management around noon. Griffin poses the question to NIST, the agency tasked by the Commission with explaining the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7, how OEM could have known so many hours in advance that the building would collapse.



Further evidence of controlled demolition is suggested by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute who noted the peculiar characteristics of oxidation and sulfidation on salvaged WTC steel beams. NIST admitted that the temperature of the fires was insufficient (by at least 1000°F) to melt steel. However, if thermate cutter charges (thermite plus sulfur) were used to slice the steel framework, that would explain the molten steel. How did NIST and the 9/11 Commission explain the eyewitness testimony that steel had melted? By not mentioning it.



Several chapters are devoted to exposing contradictions concerning the alleged hijackers. The assertion that Hani Hanjour could have flown American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon after making a spectacular 330° turn over prohibited airspace is demonstrably preposterous given his record of total incompetence as a pilot. The profile of Mohamed Atta as a devout Muslim on a sacred suicide mission is contradicted by numerous eye-witnesses who described his unholy lifestyle in vivid detail. The FBI's assertion that Atta's personal belongings provided a treasure trove of incriminating evidence (a Koran, his Will and a list of the 19 hijackers) is dubious, given the FBI's inconsistent versions of where this miraculous proof was found. It was first reportedly found in a white Mitsubishi at Logan airport in Boston. That story was changed when a subsequent tale proved to be false. After the FBI claimed that two hijackers named Bukhari had driven a blue Nissan to Portland, Maine, and then taken a commuter flight back to Boston on the morning of 9/11, it was discovered that one Bukhari had died the previous year and the other was still alive. The FBI clumsily merged these stories by claiming that Atta drove the blue Nissan to Portland and then took the commuter flight back. In this new story, the incriminating evidence was "found" in his luggage, which failed to get transferred to Flight 11.



The public belief that Middle Eastern men hijacked the planes was based heavily on media reports of over 15 cell phone calls from passengers to relatives, although high-altitude cell phone calls were not possible in 2001. One source of the hijacker tale came from the Justice Department's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who told CNN that his wife (Barbara) had called him twice from American Flight 77. That claim was contradicted at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006 when the FBI reported that only two cell phone calls were made from all four planes, and that both calls originated from United Flight 93 (after it had descended to 5,000 feet). How did the Commission reconcile FBI records with reports from family members who recognized Caller IDs made from cell phones? It omitted the FBI records.



Why do these contradictions matter? The story of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and nineteen Muslim hijackers is based entirely on unverified claims. Despite promises of forthcoming evidence, the US government has yet to deliver any hard evidence. To this day, the FBI's web page concerning Osama bin Laden does not accuse him of involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Why not? An FBI official has admitted, "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." What, then, is the justification for attacking two sovereign nations and killing over one million civilians?



Although Griffin refrains from making direct accusations, he methodically presents objective evidence that leads the reader to an inevitable conclusion ~ that the purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to assign guilt where it did not exist and to cover up guilt where it did, thereby obstructing criminal indictments for treason, mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the earth.



Griffin's impeccable research should inspire public demand for an independent investigation of 9/11. The enormous public service Griffin has provided in preparing this meticulous archive cannot be over-stated. Any investigative journalist worthy of that title would need only to validate this archive of facts. With the precision and skill of a seasoned District Attorney, David Ray Griffin presents a case that is so well organized it could be used intact by any prosecutor devoted to uncovering the truth.



Let the trials begin. Indictments are long overdue.



http://www.sott.net/articles/show/158715-Book-Review-9-11-Contradictions-An-Open-Letter-to-Congress-and-the-Press









This is just a preliminary summary of the evidence implicating Israel in the attacks of 9/11. It's nowhere near complete, so chime in with the stuff that's left left.



~~~





Corporate



The Odigo warnings



Zim Shipping



Do
David H
2008-06-11 18:13:24 UTC
That is stupid. People who have these ideas are just fishing for things.
myle_killer
2008-06-11 18:25:02 UTC
No
wibrwibr
2008-06-11 18:14:38 UTC
No. Stop wasting your time.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...