September 11, 2001 (long read)

Everything is right before your eyes, yet people will rather believe that brown folk living meager lives hate us for our freedoms. No, they hate us because we occupy their lands, gave Palestine to their historic enemies, and kill their people while violating the Geneva Codes throwing white phosphorous on their children.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

Hey look, a person-hater!

And like clockwork, there goes the anti-semitic card.

Anti-zionism and anti-person are not the same thing. I am tired of our soldiers dying in Israel's war. I'm tired of my tax dollars blindly funding Israel billions of dollars a year.

Do society a favor and go read a book.

The first 2 have been refuted enough through 350 posts so no need to continue since you certainly won't honor your promise.

I am sure I am wasting my time doing so but let's analyze your claim on #3.

The first thing provided is a link to wikipedia, the authoritative source for anything and everything on the Internet.

Partial sarcasm intended there although I must admit I frequently start at wikipedia for lots of things I am researching but I ALWAYS attempt to verify the information from other sources. Anyone can create a login and edit any page.

# Your words:
"You can read it for yourself, but it basically describes what the U.S. Government was capable of in 1962.  For all of you (and there has been many) that are saying stuff like "the government would never do this" etc, how can you possibly explain Operation Northwoods to me?"
#

It describes what the government was capable of in 1962? Really? It looks like what a general proposed doing in 1962. Saying "let's do this" and actually doing it are completely different. I don't think anyone believes the government is a completely honest, that there is no corruption or that no one in government would be capable of at least considering the things described in Operation Northwoods. The existence of this document doesn't prove the government planned 9/11 as you claim.

There is no doubt that some one in the military with no knowledge of this document could have come up with their own version of a false flag operation. There is a term for them for a reason. Your 9/11 plan is nothing like Operation Northwoods.

If this is your smoking gun and the blue print for 9/11 then why would it be declassified in 1997?

# Your words:
"a.) Operation Northwoods was meant to gather public support to attack Cuba, a recently aquinted communist nation under Fidel Castro.

Comparision:  9/11 was meant to gather public support to attack Iraw, a nation which was ruled by a "brutal dictator" and housed the majority of the worlds oil supply."
#

So that is why we attacked Afghanistan and still use the false excuse of MWD's to attack Iraq. Makes sense to me. Why lie about the MWD's when you supposedly already have public support for attacking Iraq?

Crashing planes into buildings and killing innocent people would not be enough to gather support? It wasn't until the buildings came down, which increased the number of innocent people killed, that there was public support. I remember I was in a hospital most of the day as my daughter had surgery. In the waiting room everyone was "ho-hum"  and "so what" after the planes crashed into the WTC towers but once the buildings came down they all jumped up in unison and started chanting "Attack Iraq, attack Iraq!"

None of the items in Operation Northwoods calls for massive casualties and in fact the general goes out of his way to all but eliminate casualties.

# Your words:
b.)  Operation Northwoods discussed the "hijacking" of commercial airliners and flying them into buildings in the Miami area of Florida.  These hijackings would however be of unmanned aircraft, and flown by drone planes into the targets. Civilian casualties would be at a minimum. The U.S. would essentially blame Cuba for the terrorist attacks, resulting in a creating of public support for invasion of Cuba.

Comparision:  9/11 flew commercial airliners into the WTC in New York, and claimed that the planes were "hijacked" by a middle eastern terrorist group called Al-Quadia. This led to a creation of public support for a war in Iraq, which the U.S. invaded less than 2 years later.
#

Really? I read your link on Wikipedia twice and did not find a single reference to the "hijacking" of commercial airliners and flying them into buildings. I thought maybe I was missing it so I searched for plane, airliner, and aircraft. There is reference to hijacking planes but nothing about intentionally crashing them into buildings. Until 9/11 the hijacking of planes was always in an attempt to achieve some goal not to use them as a weapon.

I found no where in the link you provided any reference to a "hijacked" plane being flown into buildings. Not surprising that you would somehow "find" that in the document and think no one would actually read it.

Despite the fact that the link you provided does not have the text you provided your made up text includes the statement "Civilian casualties would be at a minimum" which was obviously not a requirement for the 9/11 plan. So they are the same how?

Continued.....

# Your words:
c.) This from the above link on wikipedia:

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. "

"An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone."

"Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident"

Comparison: 9/11 created the public out cry for war after United Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after a group of civilians attempted to overthrow the middle-eastern hijackers.  Amidst reports from the 9/11 commission that Flight 93 actually landed, the government later revealed that these reports, coming from actual NORAD generals, were completely false.  The NORAD generals were later removed from active duty.
#

Key word is aliases. Look it up.

In other words a fake passenger list. Those that got off the plane would not need to be secreted off to some reverse witness protection program or simply be killed anyways. The list of the "dead" would all be fake. Is this the claim for flight #93? If so then the family members that received the phone calls must be fake as well.

On a side note, the standard conspiracy theory as I recall is that a missile was shot at the Pentagon. I don't recall you touching on this much if at all but if it was a missile then what happened to that plane?


A well executed operation of this nature would be as simplistic as possible, minimize the number of people involved, require little to no ongoing actions to keep the operation secret and have little to no casualties. Each item in Operation Northwoods keeps those goals in mind.

In 1962 there was no Internet and no 24x7 access to instant news. Controlling the flow of information would have been much easier in 1962 and despite that the operation was drawn up with steps to meet the above objectives.

In your 9/11 plan everything is more complex despite the fact that in 2001 it was harder to control the information that gets out thus making covering up that much more difficult. It also has no limit on casualties.

Here are the steps for your plan:

1) Plant explosive charges throughout the WTC towers without being noticed.
2) Have middle eastern terrorists "hijack" planes.
   a) Have one crash into north tower killing innocent Americans.
   b) Have one crash into south tower killing innocent Americans.
   c) Shoot missile at Pentagon to make it look like 3rd plane crashed into building. Make plane disappear.
   d) Shoot missile into ground in the middle of no where PA. Land plane in Cleveland.
3) Set off charges in south tower to bring it down, killing even more innocent Americans.
4) Set off charges in north tower to bring it down, killing even more innocent Americans.
5) We need to do something with the passengers from Pentagon plane, who the f%@k was in charge of this step at Bilderberger World?
6) Allow passengers in 4th plane to look like heroes
    a) Have them make improbable phone calls to family members so that we now have to deal with the family members.
    b) Have them "attack" the "hijackers" and take the plane down.
    c) De-plane passengers in Cleveland and put them in a reverse witness protection program. If they attempt to contact anyone we will kill them.

How many people would it take to plant explosive charges in just 2 days without being seen (you claim the dogs were pulled on 9/9)?
How many people would be required to "watch" the passengers from flight #93 to make sure they were not trying to bust the conspiracy? Wouldn't you also need to watch those watching the passengers and so on?
Why all the casualties? You not only kill the people that are in the towers but create a situation where people will go in so that they can be killed as well?

Your plan couldn't be more opposite then what is described in Operation Northwoods. Yours is as complex as can possibly be, maximizes the number of people involved, requires immense ongoing actions, and maximizes casualties.

There is nothing that is going to stop you from believing the government was behind the 9/11 attacks but stop using Operation Northwoods as a basis to your claim. It actually works against you.

Real easy to hide the truth in plain sight while two opposing sides are shouting each other down.

Hey, isn't that the way our two party system works too?

Yikes that's a lot to respond to, which I will later today

I did notice that you haven't even touched points #1 and #2 though.  Operation Northwoods was just a claim to show you, and anyone else, that these type of "incidents" have been talked about before at the government level. 

Am I saying that O.N. was following to the exact specifications as 9/11?  No, of course not.  There are clear differences and a clear difference in planning must have been followed, taking into account the media presence on 9/11 compared to what would have happened in 1962.

I'll hit more points later, just wish you could have refuted #1 and #2, instead of the obvious differences in 9/11 and O.N. that I already knew about

Robert DeNiro is a person? I don't think so!!!!!

Sure I did. The very first sentence of post #358. Perhaps you missed it.

False flag operations are not a revelation suddenly brought to light by your theory regarding 9/11. I don't recall seeing one post in this thread claiming otherwise.

Those that are disagreeing with your 9/11 conspiracy theory simply don't believe that the the events of 9/11 are part of a false flag operation. You are inferring from their disagreement that they also don't believe that those type of operations even exist.

Just because one doesn't think 9/11 is a false flag operation doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe false flag operations exist or have been discussed or even actually carried out. This doesn't seem like an incredibly difficult concept to grasp.

Search for them. Your favorite source (Wikipedia) has a page devoted to the subject. You can probably find yourself a few more conspiracy theories if you chase enough of them down.

Yikes you  never responded to me!!!  You said I had no answer for your mysterious man with no legs conspiracy.  When I proved you wrong there you had no response.  Your nutty claims are dwindling faster than a billiard ball at free fall speed.  When an unprecedented event occurs answers/explanations aren't going to match what you have seen before...UNPRECEDENTED!  WHY would the blow up building 7????  There were no additional victims.  WTC 1 and 2 had already collapsed.  Did they think if WTC 7 was left standing we couldn't go to war?  I know what you are going to say.  "WTC 7 contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions."  Right??  So basically you want us to believe blowing up a building, with tons of rescue workers in the immediate area, was easier then destroying computers and shredding documents?  There were fires burning, debris damaged the building.  Why not just say those things were destroyed?  THIS is why you're full of shit.  Not only are your claims based on things that are flat out wrong, your theory is totally asinine.

This was held out for a long time. After he came out and said he was a jewish catholic, he made Meet the Parents with his people... 

https://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jewish_catholics.html

Robert De Niro was born to a lapsed Catholic father and an atheist mother who had been raised as a Presbyterian. His parent did not want him to be baptized into the Catholic Church, but his grandparents had him baptized as a Catholic when he was two years old. (His parents were in the middle of a divorce at the time, and he was living with his paternal grandparents.)

Although De Niro has famously portrayed a number of overtly Catholic characters on screen, and he apparently has publicly indicated that he considers himself Catholic, there is no indication that he has ever lived as a practicing Catholic.

Do you not even read the questionable websites you quote?

Please go to this website, it discredits everything this jacka$$ conspiracy nut job is saying.  Even his stupid free fall theory where he tries to make himself sound like some sort of scientist when really he is just a wacko who probably gets a stiffy every time he posts something on here

The website is https://www.911myths.com/index.html

To those who are reading about Operation Northwoods in these post, the plan was rejected.  It was never actually carried out and one must also note that no one was to be killed in the scheme as well.

Here is another awesome link that pretty much makes all these Conspiracy Theorist look like jackasses.  It a word document and it goes over the entire Loose Change movie, point for point, and kills just about every theory.  By the way this guy smdio claims to have spent $100,000 but the only thing I think this guy has done is watch Loose Change about 100,000 times.

https://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

now this right here is the dumbest shit i have ever read in my entire life.....comments like this make u look like your insane or have serious mental problems

Total idiocy....

Actually, you have incredibly good points.  But the manner in which you post and insult me leads me to not want to engage in a debate with you.  Maybe if you grow up and stop insulting me with every post you make, I'd be inclined to debate and maybe even accept some of your views.  But to me, it seems like your a 17 years old kid that just wants to bash me for my views. For that reason, I'm no longer even reading your posts

I'm not saying YOU must believe 9/11 was a false-flag, but there have been at least 12 others in this thread that said the government is incapable of such a thing.  O.N. pretty much proves those people incorrect, and that's why I included it

Rather soon, I'm going to remove myself from this thread.

If we cannot DEBATE and refrain from INSULTS, there's no reason this thread should be active.

If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, FINE.  That's your view.

If you do believe 9/11 was an inside job, FINE as well.

Give supporting reasons for each, and each side will debate about those reasons/websites/sciences/whatever.

All of this "that guy is insane" yadda yadda yadda while giving absolutely no arguementative data towards debate really just shows your ignorance and further proves my point about why I believe the government constructed this plan to begin with.  They pray on how naive and closed-minded the public has become, and knew the plan would succeed based on this fact alone.

You don't believe the towers fell in free fall speed?  Show a video that has them falling in over 9.2 seconds

You don't believe Flight 93 landed?  Show contradicting evidence of what the NORAD offcial told the 9/11 commission

You believe the 13 cell phone calls happened from above 20,000 feet?  Show evidence that cell phone calls can be made at such altitudes

Don't come into this thread and be a jackass.  There's hundreds of other threads on covers that you can do that in.  If you aren't intelligent enough to argue without insulting, this thread isn't for you.  If you like your posts being ignored due to your idiocacy, then keep posting as you've been, and I'll select the far more advanced people to engage in debate with instead of you

smdio, you and your other conspiracy theory friends have quite an imagination... Actually the onus is on "You" to disprove the events that unfolded on 9/11.

For example;

You don't believe Flight 93 landed?  Show contradicting evidence of what the NORAD offcial told the 9/11 commission

Incorrect.  You must show what happened with Flight 93

You believe the 13 cell phone calls happened from above 20,000 feet?  Show evidence that cell phone calls can be made at such altitudes

Incorrect.  You must prove that phone call "cannot" be made at these altitudes.

I think it's good to have a healthy skepticism about our government, but some of you  "predetermined"  the government was to blame, then search and latch on to anything to support your claim.

Have an open mind.

Rush, have you read this entire thread?  I've shown multiple times evidence of what I believe happened to Flight 93, and also what the NORAD officials stated to the 9/11 commission.

I've been researching and asking questions to our government for almost 10 years.  I do not simply latch onto bogus internet sights.

I think you should re-read the thread, instead of maybe 1-2 pages