Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Moobie · 09-09-2004, 09:50 PM

On the conspiracy related topic. There are a few necessary needs for a conspiracy.

One: it needs to be as simple as possible. The more convoluted the conspiracy the less likely it is to succeed. Something of this nature, I will admit that we by no means have all the information on, would take many people involved from different organizations and different backgrounds. Unless the government has found a way to keep all of these people silent it wouldn't work. Killing them would be too obvious, as would paying them off. So I can't figure out how that would be done.

It seems too complicated.

Two: You need to have a patsy. I think this one is covered pretty well with Al Qaeda. Fanatical Islamic group, know for acts of terrorism across the world. But there's a problem with the idea of Al Qaeda being used as a patsy. Bin Laden would probably have been very happy with what happen on 9/11 if he hadn't been involved. But the instant that the American media/government singled out Al Qaeda as the perpetrator they would have done something to deny it. Only a retard wouldn't be expecting America to strike back. If they were responsible they would have nothing to do but take it. But if they were innocent of the attacks they would have tried to shift the blame, to deny it, to keep America from kicking their asses. A patsy only works if you silence him fast. We haven't silenced them. They haven't denied it.

Al Qaeda doesn’t fit the patsy role.

Three: Motive/gain. There has to be something for the perpetrators of the crime to gain from the act. This is perhaps the easiest, and hardest, concept to pin down. There are so many possibilities. Money, power, revenge. If your going to try to pin it on the American government then a few pop out as prominent theories. The best being that of finding a new post Cold War enemy to galvanize the American people. Fear is a powerful controlling agent. I don’t think anyone can deny that the American government has used this tactic in the past on its own people. Money is a little more convoluted idea, like someone posted earlier it’s not that easy to make assloads of money off of war anymore. Peace time seems to be more profitable. Now I’m sure there are those making money off of the war, if there’s a way for money to be made people will figure it out. But to plan it in advance, to provide the catalyst to kick start the war would leave too much of a paper trail for people to follow. My vote would be for the power/control theory.

One thing that really bothers me with the idea that the Pentagon attack was faked is that would have to mean that the WTC attacks were also faked. I cannot believe that terrorists on their own would attack the WTC in this incredibly calculated and well executed fashion. And then the American government cobbles together in a matter of hours/minutes (?) the idea to crash/shoot something into the Pentagon. Why? It doesn’t make any sense. If they shot down the plane as a preventative measure why fake the Pentagon attack? Having to shoot down a civilian plane is bad enough. But to cover it up you do something as stupid as to try and blow up part of one of your own buildings? Not to mention that why would you spend all of the time and precision necessary to fly two planes into the WTC and then go half-assed in attacking the Pentagon? It doesn’t add up either way.

Something sounds fishy about the Pentagon attack, but I have a feeling the reason it doesn’t match what we know about the WTC attacks is because the government is hiding something about that attack. Either something about the way it was carried out or the events that happened afterward. It may have something to do with the Pentagon itself. I’m stretching here. Any thoughts on the matter would be helpful.

09-09-2004, 09:50 PM	#139 (permalink)
Moobie Insane Location: baked beans	On the conspiracy related topic. There are a few necessary needs for a conspiracy. One: it needs to be as simple as possible. The more convoluted the conspiracy the less likely it is to succeed. Something of this nature, I will admit that we by no means have all the information on, would take many people involved from different organizations and different backgrounds. Unless the government has found a way to keep all of these people silent it wouldn't work. Killing them would be too obvious, as would paying them off. So I can't figure out how that would be done. It seems too complicated. Two: You need to have a patsy. I think this one is covered pretty well with Al Qaeda. Fanatical Islamic group, know for acts of terrorism across the world. But there's a problem with the idea of Al Qaeda being used as a patsy. Bin Laden would probably have been very happy with what happen on 9/11 if he hadn't been involved. But the instant that the American media/government singled out Al Qaeda as the perpetrator they would have done something to deny it. Only a retard wouldn't be expecting America to strike back. If they were responsible they would have nothing to do but take it. But if they were innocent of the attacks they would have tried to shift the blame, to deny it, to keep America from kicking their asses. A patsy only works if you silence him fast. We haven't silenced them. They haven't denied it. Al Qaeda doesn’t fit the patsy role. Three: Motive/gain. There has to be something for the perpetrators of the crime to gain from the act. This is perhaps the easiest, and hardest, concept to pin down. There are so many possibilities. Money, power, revenge. If your going to try to pin it on the American government then a few pop out as prominent theories. The best being that of finding a new post Cold War enemy to galvanize the American people. Fear is a powerful controlling agent. I don’t think anyone can deny that the American government has used this tactic in the past on its own people. Money is a little more convoluted idea, like someone posted earlier it’s not that easy to make assloads of money off of war anymore. Peace time seems to be more profitable. Now I’m sure there are those making money off of the war, if there’s a way for money to be made people will figure it out. But to plan it in advance, to provide the catalyst to kick start the war would leave too much of a paper trail for people to follow. My vote would be for the power/control theory. One thing that really bothers me with the idea that the Pentagon attack was faked is that would have to mean that the WTC attacks were also faked. I cannot believe that terrorists on their own would attack the WTC in this incredibly calculated and well executed fashion. And then the American government cobbles together in a matter of hours/minutes (?) the idea to crash/shoot something into the Pentagon. Why? It doesn’t make any sense. If they shot down the plane as a preventative measure why fake the Pentagon attack? Having to shoot down a civilian plane is bad enough. But to cover it up you do something as stupid as to try and blow up part of one of your own buildings? Not to mention that why would you spend all of the time and precision necessary to fly two planes into the WTC and then go half-assed in attacking the Pentagon? It doesn’t add up either way. Something sounds fishy about the Pentagon attack, but I have a feeling the reason it doesn’t match what we know about the WTC attacks is because the government is hiding something about that attack. Either something about the way it was carried out or the events that happened afterward. It may have something to do with the Pentagon itself. I’m stretching here. Any thoughts on the matter would be helpful. __________________ Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers. We like money. Give us your money you stupid consumer whore.