Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,496 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255326 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
This verbal statement is not verifiable proof he was charged in the events of 911. This is merely a statement . A warrant , indictment , or actual charges are required to make his statement true. So your saying High profile people get special treatment in the courts of law where all men are created equal?
NOPE, Your reading comprehension is suffering. ONCE AGAIN!

PS: You rarely charge someone in a high profile case until after they are captured, if there is charges, they must be given their Miranda rights immediately, a common and basic prosecution tactic that does not relate to innocence.

PPS: High profile, any serious crime such as felonies, low profile, jaywalking.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices. "There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point.... There is a logic to it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

The former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when Mr. bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, David Kelley, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to September 11 on the official wanted poster. Mr. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant. "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," Mr. Kelley, now in private practice, said. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
http://www.nysun.com/national/bin-ladens-most...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255327 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a link stating how Osama Bin Laden,... was directly involved in the 911 tragedies.
Bin Laden: Yes, I did it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...

BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_...

From the links

He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.

"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.

The al-Qaeda leader said the hijackers had planned to have all the attacks take place within 20 minutes because they were sure the Americans would react quickly and start shooting down errant airplanes.

Bush's delay "gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thanks be to God," bin Laden said.

In planning the attacks, bin Laden said he told Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, that the strikes had to be carried out "within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."

It is significant that throughout the video he uses the personal pronouns "I" and "we" to claim responsibility for the attacks. In the past, he has spoken of the attackers only in the third person.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind." .

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/1...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004...

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255328 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
That's not evidence, it's an essay, well, it is evidence you are into some really lame music (unless you are 14 or under).
<quoted text>
Please refer to the disclaimer at the end of my last paragraph.Actually I think I was around 14 when this "primitive" group became mainstream. So to speak. The first amendment is a wonderful thing when it is understood and allowed. This bands lyrics proves It has to be .
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255329 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol ! I think a a couple of lessons on criminal justice should be a required to become an officer paid to enforce any laws where the public is concerned . Only thing is most cops wouldn't be a very productive enforcer if they knew how many laws they usually break in the "due process" part of an investigation. When an individual being detained knows more about the law than the officer it tends to cause animosity . This only makes the police look stupid and violates any code of ethics. And yes if you are involved in the prosecution tends to make a conviction more difficult.Good luck with that.
Bingo!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255330 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please refer to the disclaimer at the end of my last paragraph.Actually I think I was around 14 when this "primitive" group became mainstream. So to speak. The first amendment is a wonderful thing when it is understood and allowed. This bands lyrics proves It has to be .
That's why I have a ACLU card in my back pocket.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255331 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you would be wrong, all investigations start AFTER THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.
No you are mistaken here . I can see you have never been pulled over because you look suspicious. No crime has been commissioned .
Only the thought of an officer has been committed. Suspicion of an unknown crime is not "after the commission of a crime" , it is profiling.Or to be honest I see this as "criminal negligence". It being a crime to assume guilt before a trial or even any evidence being provided is terrorism at its finest.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255332 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Bin Laden: Yes, I did it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...
BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_...
From the links
He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
The al-Qaeda leader said the hijackers had planned to have all the attacks take place within 20 minutes because they were sure the Americans would react quickly and start shooting down errant airplanes.
Bush's delay "gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thanks be to God," bin Laden said.
In planning the attacks, bin Laden said he told Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, that the strikes had to be carried out "within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."
It is significant that throughout the video he uses the personal pronouns "I" and "we" to claim responsibility for the attacks. In the past, he has spoken of the attackers only in the third person.
"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind." .
Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/1...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004...
Still no charges from the fbi , cia, nsa, or any other alphabet agency? Television is not proof of guilt. BBC reported building 7 collapse before it crumpled . Does this prove a scripted news ?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255333 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are mistaken here . I can see you have never been pulled over because you look suspicious. No crime has been commissioned .
Only the thought of an officer has been committed. Suspicion of an unknown crime is not "after the commission of a crime" , it is profiling.Or to be honest I see this as "criminal negligence". It being a crime to assume guilt before a trial or even any evidence being provided is terrorism at its finest.
How do you investigate a non existent crime, you make no sense.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255334 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I have a ACLU card in my back pocket.
Right on ! The law works for everyone that wishes to know it. No matter who you are, or your occupation. Knowledge is a powerful thing when used properly.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255335 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you investigate a non existent crime, you make no sense.

That is my very point. I as well as many other citizens have been targeted by certain factions of law enforcement for strictly being somewhere these agencies assumed illegal activity was taking place. Hence your" After the crime" statement is incorrect.What is a preemptive war? I consider it down right terrorism. Looking "suspicious " is not a crime.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255336 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is my very point. I as well as many other citizens have been targeted by certain factions of law enforcement for strictly being somewhere these agencies assumed illegal activity was taking place. Hence your" After the crime" statement is incorrect.What is a preemptive war? I consider it down right terrorism. Looking "suspicious " is not a crime.
Profiling is not an investigation of a crime, it is an Unconstitutional method of determining if there is any crime to investigate.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255337 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE, Your reading comprehension is suffering. ONCE AGAIN!
PS: You rarely charge someone in a high profile case until after they are captured, if there is charges, they must be given their Miranda rights immediately, a common and basic prosecution tactic that does not relate to innocence.
PPS: High profile, any serious crime such as felonies, low profile, jaywalking.
Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices. "There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point.... There is a logic to it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
The former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when Mr. bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, David Kelley, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to September 11 on the official wanted poster. Mr. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant. "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," Mr. Kelley, now in private practice, said. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
http://www.nysun.com/national/bin-ladens-most...
Reading comprehension..."the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices. "

Thanks for providing exactly what I said. OBL was not charged with 911. An alleged tv admission of guilt is not a charge .

Next would be the involvement of Iraq , Afghanistan, and Iran.
Where these countries charged with a crime?

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255338 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Profiling is not an investigation of a crime, it is an Unconstitutional method of determining if there is any crime to investigate.

Oh I see , An investigation , investigating whether an investigation is warranted or a crime was possibly committed.
That's kinda saying because you leave a bank with a bag of money and enter a vehicle waiting at the curb then speed away it is probable you just robbed the bank. Unconstitutional is putting it mildly...Terrorism is what it is.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255339 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I see , An investigation , investigating whether an investigation is warranted or a crime was possibly committed.
That's kinda saying because you leave a bank with a bag of money and enter a vehicle waiting at the curb then speed away it is probable you just robbed the bank. Unconstitutional is putting it mildly...Terrorism is what it is.
Your defenition of terrorism is strange, while a USC 1983 violation could be terrorism it rarely is, normally it is a simple violation of civil rights, wrong, yes, terrorism, no.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255340 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading comprehension..."the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices. "
Wrong, And this says it all, get back to me once you are a 3L and you will understand.

The former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when Mr. bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, David Kelley, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to September 11 on the official wanted poster. Mr. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant. "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," Mr. Kelley, now in private practice, said. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
http://www.nysun.com/national/bin-ladens-most ...

Once again, you don't want to file charges till you have him in custody since he is wanted on other charges, you want him to keep confessing in the media like he did. Also you use other trials to bolster yours, if he had went on trial for the Cole, known associates, act and so for are automatically admissible when new charges are filled in the newly files charges, no need for discovery, no need to do endless interviews of witnesses. It already happens in the first case (Cole) thus saving taxpayer money.

You most often see this with serial killers and different jurisdictions, pick the easiest provable murder first and after that trial your iffy case in another jurisdiction can become a cakewalk due to information gained in the first.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#255342 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>Actually the post your referring to does not state what I think happened to the towers . It doesn't make a bit of difference what I think. It only gives another probable cause that should've been included in the investigations , if only for the sole purpose of ruling it out. An incomplete report does not necessarily provide the best solution , just a possible one.

The official story is much more plausible than what I wrote earlier. Plausibility is used to deceive perception .

Grammatical comprehension would be the reason for my post . Obviously , not a strong point for some people posting on this thread.. I figured you would understand by the way it was said.
My point was that your example isn't possible and should not have been included in a list of plausible collapse scenarios. It fails at the most basic level which is a simple application of logic and reason.

When scientists are asked to solve a problem they don't consider solutions outside of rationality.

Your main issue seems to be the word "plausible" which is no more nebulous than the word "theory".

A theory is simply the best explanation for an event given the available data and NIST's use of the word "plausible" is no different.

And lets be honest, if the collapse sequence changed tomorrow due to new information, it wouldn't change the most plausible explanation for a collapse mechanism.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#255343 May 1, 2013
onemale wrote:
I do NOT claim to be a physicist... this comes from people who are.
Although, like usual some idiot on here will dispute the experts.

MATHEMATICS OF 9/11: THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/po...
That's hilarious!

You just cited what looks to be elevator boy-sheep's blog.

1) The first video is bunk because the "expurt" claims the "official story" says jet fuel was the cause of collapse.

That's a load of crap and not supported by the NIST report.

2) The second video shows Jeff King (an EE) claiming that "squibs" prove the use of explosives yet the timing of the "squibs" are suspiciously silent with no audible signature on any videos.

Plus it doesn't take a genius to understand that as you compress something like a building, air with find a way to escape.

3) If this is honestly what you find convincing then you should really do something to improve your knowledge of the physical sciences because what you have now is pure gullibility.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255344 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
The official story is based on limits and stipulations provided by (like the evidence) the very people responsible for the "mission accomplished " press facade. Would this be based on factual events also? LOL Who spouts non-sense? Next thing your gonna tell me is the bible is the official story of religion. ha ha ha ha ha !! I'll admit the entertained ignorant public don't understand how the government manipulates the press , sad thing is they probably don't care that they're being duped into wars on inanimate objects.
One of my favorite rock groups , GWAR, has a song titled "You Can't Kill Terror" , Most of the lyrics ring so true its a little disturbing our national defense agreed to fight this silly war on a feeling.( ps they also sing "bring back the bomb" ,"babyraper", "pre-school prostitute" , and "fu*kin an animal" so don't take this last paragraph in this post to literal)....
Opinion, not fact.

The Bible is the Official basis for the organized Christian Church.

Even if the press was manipulated, it doesn't alter the facts and evidence concerning the hijackings and resultant damage.

I agree, the response to 9/11 was absurd along with the lies about WMDs etc.
onemale

Pana, IL

#255345 May 1, 2013
I listen to the experts, which you are not.
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
That's hilarious!
You just cited what looks to be elevator boy-sheep's blog.
1) The first video is bunk because the "expurt" claims the "official story" says jet fuel was the cause of collapse.
That's a load of crap and not supported by the NIST report.
2) The second video shows Jeff King (an EE) claiming that "squibs" prove the use of explosives yet the timing of the "squibs" are suspiciously silent with no audible signature on any videos.
Plus it doesn't take a genius to understand that as you compress something like a building, air with find a way to escape.
3) If this is honestly what you find convincing then you should really do something to improve your knowledge of the physical sciences because what you have now is pure gullibility.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#255347 May 1, 2013
Let me help out people who are trying to decipher what these deniers of logic are actually saying.

LOL = Lying out loud

ROTFLMAO = Rolling on the floor lying my ass off.

http://youtu.be/RFZrzg62Zj0

"twoofer" = A smear tactic meant to imply people who believe a conspiracy, believe all conspiracies.

They practice the art of smear campaigns because they need to avoid a real discussion. They didn't destroy the evidence, they visually inspected it and found nothing that would cause harm to themselves, their families, or their careers.

http://youtu.be/DVG1q49yPaY

Cult members promoting propaganda repeat themselves and slander those who use thought, to act like little Hitlers trying to control, as they themselves are controlled. It's comforting to be warmed by the common perception.

Just some reasons why

Insults Are Easier

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 min -Stray Dog 6,359
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min Buck Crick 863,727
The Christian Atheist debate 1 min feces for jesus 1,909
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 1 min rohit 443
Why are most white people so arrogant? (Apr '10) 1 min See Thru U 795
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 min Patrick Daniels 599,347
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 min curtjester1 40,849
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 min Great Day of Arma... 612,891
More from around the web