9-11, 23 years ago and still there's thoughts of complicity by the USA/Bush

[Ram-Alf]

7 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

You do know that Capricorn One isn't a documentary don't you??

Isn't it...well I'll be blowed, And here's me thinking it was true☺️

JFK

Conspiracy theorists will not accept what a Government puts out it will be challenged if they think there's questions that have not been answered, The Warren commission said LHO acted alone 😁, What happened to the magic bullet?, The Zapruder tapes "looks" like he was hit from the front, The rifle that LHO supposedly used(he was pictured with it)was not the one that was put on show, Who killed officer Tippet?, Office workers who were coming down the stairs(witnesses)said they never saw LHO pass them on the stairs in the Texas school book depository, Who had reasons to kill JFK, LBJ, the Mafia, Cuba, Russia, How did Jack Ruby get through the security to kill Oswald, Why did the FBI/CIA interfere with the autopsy, 1000s of redacted pages of witness accounts...sh!t loads more that haven't been answered.

Successive USA Presidents have refused or put back disclosure of the whole JFK files...now why would they do that ☺️  Governments I wouldn't trust them as far as I could pi$$ on em.    

[ariotofmyown]

Just looked up definition of conspiracy "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful". So you can have theories on quite different levels of conspiracies.

The JFK assassination seems like your classic conspiracy theory. It would not need many people to plan and execute. These people could possibly be linked to the governemt, or organised crime. It is actually realistic.

Things like 9/11, Qanon, Sandy Hook, moon landings, flat earth, Illuminati etc almost need to belong to another bracket, something like "insane conspiracy theories". The sheer number of people needed to make these things happen is off the scale. Almost no evidence exists, except a few unanswered questions or unexpected reactions. They suck up so much airtime and can make people obsessed with nothing.

The also seem to have replaced people's desire to find out about genuine scandals...not planned conspiracies, but cover ups when things have gone seriously wrong: Grenfell, Post Office, Religious Child Abuse etc.

There are more than enough real things to get wound up about, without invented stories. Perhaps that is what they want you to focus on, eh?!

[Alph]

Wait, the op wasn’t laying out some far fetched conspiracy? 
It was that a Saudi Agent was giving a guided terror tour and the footage was buried?

The conspiracy being that America preferred the terms they had with the Saudis and didn’t want it to interrupt their “war on terror” as it was packaged and sold?

Edited September 9 by Alph

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, ramsbottom said:

This has always been my argument when anyone spouts their theories on 9/11.  There's no conceivable way the amount of people needed to lay the tonnes of explosives you'd need to level those buildings, could do so undetected.  

Conspiracy theories like this and the assassination of JFK are dreamed up by people who can't fathom or don't want to admit that the great US military/intelligence apparatus couldn't be outsmarted by a couple of dozen (as hillbillies would describe them) camel jockies, or a lone nutter with a mail order rifle.  To them it doesn't compute.  

I'd definitely recommend reading the looming towers by Lawrence Wright. It's an excellent write up on the operational and organisational failures of the US which allowed the attack to take place. 

[Stive Pesley]

17 minutes ago, Alph said:

Wait, the op wasn’t laying out some far fetched conspiracy? 

That's correct, we just got waylaid by WTC7 being brought up

The wikipedia page of the guy in the video is certainly an interesting read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bayoumi

 

[ariotofmyown]

53 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'd definitely recommend reading the looming towers by Lawrence Wright. It's an excellent write up on the operational and organisational failures of the US which allowed the attack to take place. 

I watched the tv series of that. Incredible story. There is your "conspiracy"...lots of normal people, some of whom weren't great at their jobs. 

Edited September 9 by ariotofmyown

[Leeds Ram]

13 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I watched the tv series of that. Incredible story. There is your "conspiracy"...lots of normal people, some of whom weren't great at their jobs. 

Yeah the tv show was really good too tbf! 🙂 Pretty much and simply put the US had all the pieces of the puzzle but turf wars and a bit of complacency allowed the attack to happen. It's also worth remembering that the attack could have been a lot worse. Al-Qaeda also targetted the White House and the houses of Congress but were fortunately foiled on the latter two.

Edited September 9 by Leeds Ram

[Ram-Alf]

43 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Pretty much and simply put the US had all the pieces of the puzzle but turf wars and a bit of complacency allowed the attack to happen. 

The FBI and CIA have been at War with each other for decades, Then you wonder why such atrocities happen in the USA, Even that shouts out Conspiracy 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

Yeah the tv show was really good too tbf! 🙂 Pretty much and simply put the US had all the pieces of the puzzle but turf wars and a bit of complacency allowed the attack to happen. It's also worth remembering that the attack could have been a lot worse. Al-Qaeda also targetted the White House and the houses of Congress but were fortunately foiled on the latter two.

And also the early morning attack meant there were few in the buildings? Do we know if this was deliberate timing to reduce deaths? The loss of life was obviously bad, but did they think that killing 10s of 1000s would gain then less support?

[Ram-Alf]

If posters have/haven't watched...TURNING POINT...9/11 and the War on Terror...on Netflix....give it a whirl

It gives you...Who, Why, Where, How, And What For.

Even at my age...I was taken aback by it and learnt somethings  

[Archied]

It’s now common knowledge that the cia brought in and distributed drugs in the USA to fund arms for rebels in South America , I don’t automatically buy into so called conspiracy theories but I also never rule anything out / beyond government s ect 🤷🏻‍♂️

[ariotofmyown]

11 minutes ago, Archied said:

It’s now common knowledge that the cia brought in and distributed drugs in the USA to fund arms for rebels in South America , I don’t automatically buy into so called conspiracy theories but I also never rule anything out / beyond government s ect 🤷🏻‍♂️

Again, murky dealings like this are both believable and don't require many people involved. Likewise the IRA informer who was seemingly allowed to continue killing.

It's also highly likely that almost no one in government knew that either of the above was going on.

I think there are some things you should definitely rule out.

[ramsbottom]

4 hours ago, Ram-Alf said:

Isn't it...well I'll be blowed, And here's me thinking it was true☺️

JFK

Conspiracy theorists will not accept what a Government puts out it will be challenged if they think there's questions that have not been answered, The Warren commission said LHO acted alone 😁, What happened to the magic bullet?, The Zapruder tapes "looks" like he was hit from the front, The rifle that LHO supposedly used(he was pictured with it)was not the one that was put on show, Who killed officer Tippet?, Office workers who were coming down the stairs(witnesses)said they never saw LHO pass them on the stairs in the Texas school book depository, Who had reasons to kill JFK, LBJ, the Mafia, Cuba, Russia, How did Jack Ruby get through the security to kill Oswald, Why did the FBI/CIA interfere with the autopsy, 1000s of redacted pages of witness accounts...sh!t loads more that haven't been answered.

Successive USA Presidents have refused or put back disclosure of the whole JFK files...now why would they do that ☺️  Governments I wouldn't trust them as far as I could pi$$ on em.    

Like yourself, JFK is one of my favourite films, but it isn't a historical document.  Oliver Stone has said in numerous interviews that some of the facts have been exaggerated, and some characters combined for dramatic purposes.  Have you read every volume of the Warren Report??  Saying that, the Zapruder film, and the absolutely batsh!t magic bullet theory does throw a huge amount of doubt over it's findings... 

But anyway, back to 9/11.  It was never an inside job...

[Alph]

It took until 2006 to get some clear and definite answers on The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. 

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, ramsbottom said:

Like yourself, JFK is one of my favourite films, but it isn't a historical document.  Oliver Stone has said in numerous interviews that some of the facts have been exaggerated, and some characters combined for dramatic purposes.  Have you read every volume of the Warren Report??  Saying that, the Zapruder film, and the absolutely batsh!t magic bullet theory does throw a huge amount of doubt over it's findings... 

But anyway, back to 9/11.  It was never an inside job...

The JFK...title wasn't a reference to the Oliver Stone movie...it's a reference to the killing, I would have titled it...JFK the movie by Oliver Stone staring Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman Walter Matthau ect ect  

[Archied]

3 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Again, murky dealings like this are both believable and don't require many people involved. Likewise the IRA informer who was seemingly allowed to continue killing.

It's also highly likely that almost no one in government knew that either of the above was going on.

I think there are some things you should definitely rule out.

Poss certain people are given carte blanch to do what needs doing as long as they don’t lead a trail to higher up ?

what you don’t say is just as important as what you do say , knowing but being in a position of being able to say you don’t know is a very well used excuse

[Normanton Lad]

I watched an interesting interview with Philip Hayton, the BBC anchor who introduced the Jane Standing clip about WTC7,  a few years ago. The interview was not about 9/11, but the interviewer mentioned what Jane Standing had said about WTC7 collapsing. Philip Hayton said he wasn't on duty on 9/11. He also said he'd never heard about the Jane Standing conspiracy stories. After being prompted by the interviewer he started to remember being there at some point that day. It was all very strange. Nearly everyone remembers where they were that day. I can't find the clip but there is a reference to it here :

BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse: ‘Conspiracy’ a Possibility (banderasnews.com)

There are so many things that the average person doesn't know about 9/11 : e.g. the miraculous passport, the art students, the dancing Israelis and WTC7.

Many wars start because of false flags and I think 9/11 might come under this category.

Those who say too many people would have to have been in on the conspiracy forget about things like the enigma machine being known about by hundreds, maybe thousands, and yet the public didn't find out for 30 years.

[Crewton]

How would it benefit a conspiracy remaining secret if a false report of the building's collapse was given to news outlets before it was actually "blown up"? 😂

[Stive Pesley]

24 minutes ago, Crewton said:

How would it benefit a conspiracy remaining secret if a false report of the building's collapse was given to news outlets before it was actually "blown up"? 😂

Not to mention the fact that the whole World Trade Center site had to be demolished and levelled after the twin towers came down anyway. Science aside - I've still yet to see a convincing argument as to why shady forces would have conspired to blow up WTC7, when they could have (and would have) demolished it anyway in the aftermath

[Crewton]

My query about the latest revelation that the OP highlighted is this : whilst I can quite believe that the perpetrators received intelligence help, why would the Saudi Government want to carry out the attack and, if say, their motive could have been to bait the USA into going after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden (their sworn enemies), why would they use Saudi nationals to carry out the attack? It's a bit "bleedin' obvious", isn't it? I'd have thought that the Saudis would have much rather put Iran in the frame by using some gullible dissidents?

This is the problem for me, any other factors aside, I can't see a more plausible motive yet than radical Islamist militants striking a blow against the Great Satan without any regard for the consequences.