9/11

[Riverwind]

Anyone in their right mind should question the 9/11 story.

Asking whether the US government could had done more to prevent the attacks is legimate. Believing they have tried to cover up their own incompetence is reasonable. Claiming that something other than a plane collision + fires brought down those towers is nonsense.

That said, you self-create an arguement, out of thin air, and then you argue against it. You have done this numerous times,

I noticed you deny that you ever said such things when you find your arguments are dismantled. While it may be true that you never specifically said that 'no hijackers were on those planes' you were most certainly implying that by arguing that the passports found were planted. Claiming that you were not arguing that is either disingenious or simply demonstrates that you don't understand your own arguments.

[BC_chick]

I refuse to believe that you've hopped on the Truthwagon, Figleaf; you're far too smart for that.....

What I find interesting about the whole argument about someone being "too smart" to doubt the official 9/11 story is that it lumps anyone who questions anything about that day in to one group, and labels them as tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist who are convinced some sort of government plot was in fact the culprit of 9/11.

There was an interesting link a few posts back with a (surprisingly large) number of high-ranking US military officials who also doubt the "official story." I'm quite certain that these people do not think Jews dressed as Arabs carried out the attacks, nor do they imply that unscathed passport in molten steel is a sign that Bush planted the explosives himself... Some do imply a level of culpability, others don't at all.

But it is interesting that within the wide variety of opinions amongst the spectrum of the sceptics, all are painted with the same brush.

[Riverwind]

But it is interesting that within the wide variety of opinions amongst the spectrum of the sceptics, all are painted with the same brush.

I would not say that. Many reasonable people question how much the government really knew before the attacks and many more people are absolutely disgusted with the way the Bush regime manipulated the event to justify the pointless invasion of Iraq. However, these people all agree that 4 planes were hijacked by arab terrorists and 3 of these planes crashed into buildings and one crashed into a field. They also agree that there were no explosives in the towers and their collapse was a result of massive structural damage combined with large fires.

Anyone who starts talking about missles, controlled demolitions and dissappearing planes has joined the tin foil hat brigade.

[kuzadd]

But it is interesting that within the wide variety of opinions amongst the spectrum of the sceptics, all are painted with the same brush.

I would not say that. Many reasonable people question how much the government really knew before the attacks and many more people are absolutely disgusted with the way the Bush regime manipulated the event to justify the pointless invasion of Iraq. However, these people all agree that 4 planes were hijacked by arab terrorists and 3 of these planes crashed into buildings and one crashed into a field. They also agree that there were no explosives in the towers and their collapse was a result of massive structural damage combined with large fires.

Anyone who starts talking about missles, controlled demolitions and dissappearing planes has joined the tin foil hat brigade.

BC chick is correct, everyone who questions garners the derogatory name calling, sorry to say riverwind, if you think you are intelligent, you should not lower yourself to this discourse. You demean yourself, by doing so.

Name calling is the resort of the weak.

Let's have a review........................

Historically:

Afghanistan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/36735.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp

"A captured Al Qaida document reveals that US energy companies were secretly negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline. The document was obtained by the FBI but was not allowed to be shared with other agencies in order to protect Enron. Multiple sources confirm that American law enforcement agencies were deliberately kept in the dark and systematically prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 in order to aid Enron’s secret and immoral Taliban negotiations."

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

They affirm that until August,(2001) the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one", the authors claim.

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

and then Sept 11th happened, giving the US the very thing they wanted, to bury the Taliban "under a carpet of bombs"

isn't it amazing that AlQuaeda, that western created/funded/infiltrated group gve the US , the very stuff of their dreams?

THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE (capitalized for emphasis)

1.looking back to the PNAC documents, an influential group of neo-cons who lobbied for America remaining the global leader. In order to preserve American military global preeminence something "catastrophic and catalyzing" would be needed. Then lo and behold, the stuff of their dreams comes true? (9/11)

The US had made clear there intent to invade Afghanistan, it was covered in the European press, PRIOR to 9/11. Then along comes the western created, fully co-opted AlQuaeda, to grant there wishes???This cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

The Us's policy, ALWAYS wrt oil, and the domination of the ME, the need to control the regional resources for the benefit of US companies, also controlling the supply of oil, enabling the US to strangle other countries if necessary to maintain subservience, that is all part of the global domination strategy. It's always been US policy.

Then....

1.prior knowledge on the part of the Bush admin., there still is the......

2.OBVIOUS standdown, you may dispute it, I do not, had basic standard operating procedure been followed as it ALWAYS HAD BEEN, prior to 9/11, the planes would not have hit their targets. There still is the FACT, that ....

3.AlQuaeda is a co-opted terrorist organization, created by western intelligence, fought to the benefit of the US against Russia, against Serbia, Alquaeda was used by MI6, to attempt assassinate Khaddafi (also a benefit to the west), now, AlQuaeda is in Africa, when the west is in an expansionist mode in Africa. These are not coincidences.

4. There are also numerous issues around the 9/11 commission,

5.. the Bush administrations refusal first of all to even have an investigation, 2then the severe underfunding of the commission,

6.the attempt at appointing Henry Kissinger, then finally

7.appointing the neo-con idealogue Phillip Zelikow.

8.Followed up by refusals to testify, withholding of documentation

(if one looks at previous info posted we see the 9/11 families are still trying to get information, totally unacceptable)

9. the question of the anthrax attacks? (see Francis A. Boyle wrt excellent info)

to the buildingsWTC ,all 3 of them:100's and 100's of reports of explosions, quite specific ones also(not looked into) had they been investigated alot of the speculation could have been dispelled.

The molten metal, widely reported on (not even noted in the NIST report)

I could go on, it's not necessary IMO.

One canot help but see how 9/11 further benefitted the global domination of the US (west) over the ME, the resources (oil) for the benefit of western oil, geo-strategic dominance of the region, strangling Russia,(look at the miliatary bases and the recent announcement of the missile placement) controlling china, via resource management,etc.

It looks like, it smells like global domination, under the guise of the "war on terror."

therefore riverwind, one does not even need explosions in buildings to disbelieve the "official conspiracy theory"

one needs history, an understanding of US foreign policy, a knowledge of oil interests, some understanding of geo-political strategy, and bingo!

To NOT question 9/11 and the US govs. involvment is to be willfully blind.

[GostHacked]

therefore riverwind, one does not even need explosions in buildings to disbelieve the "official conspiracy theory"

one needs history, an understanding of US foreign policy, a knowledge of oil interests, some understanding of geo-political strategy, and bingo!

To NOT question 9/11 and the US govs. involvment is to be willfully blind.

This is the whole crux of this argument. And you summed it up just nicely.

[bush_cheney2004]

therefore riverwind, one does not even need explosions in buildings to disbelieve the "official conspiracy theory"

one needs history, an understanding of US foreign policy, a knowledge of oil interests, some understanding of geo-political strategy, and bingo!

To NOT question 9/11 and the US govs. involvment is to be willfully blind.

This is the whole crux of this argument. And you summed it up just nicely.

...and it is still a logical fallacy. Taking advantage of a "terrorist act" to enhance existing foreign policy objectives does not prove government complicity in the attack. This goes into the same category as FDR orchestrating the aJapanese attack on Pearl Harbor....now which Empire and Commonwealth would benefit from that? Ergo....Canada was complicit in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Silly, eh?

[kuzadd]

therefore riverwind, one does not even need explosions in buildings to disbelieve the "official conspiracy theory"

one needs history, an understanding of US foreign policy, a knowledge of oil interests, some understanding of geo-political strategy, and bingo!

To NOT question 9/11 and the US govs. involvment is to be willfully blind.

This is the whole crux of this argument. And you summed it up just nicely.

...and it is still a logical fallacy. Taking advantage of a "terrorist act" to enhance existing foreign policy objectives does not prove government complicity in the attack. This goes into the same category as FDR orchestrating the aJapanese attack on Pearl Harbor....now which Empire and Commonwealth would benefit from that? Ergo....Canada was complicit in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Silly, eh?

I'm not suggesting " taking advantage."

I'm suggesting full participation & knowledge.

No"logical fallacy" necessary US (western) history ,foreign policy, inc. Full spectrum dominance, US/British oil interests, the regular use of "terrorists" by the west to advance western foreign policy, all speak for themselves.

Even you CANNOT deny that, unless one is a polyanna, and you are not.

[Riverwind]

No"logical fallacy" necessary US (western) history ,foreign policy, inc. Full spectrum dominance, US/British oil interests, the regular use of "terrorists" by the west to advance western foreign policy, all speak for themselves.

Such assertions are completely irrelevant to the question of what happened on 9/11. Thruthies spend a lot of nattering about how little pieces of information support their theory but they do not have a single coherent and plausible story arc that explains exactly how such a hoax could have been orchestrated. You can natter as much as you want about bits of inconclusive information but the nattering means nothing if you can put the pieces together.

[runningdog]

No"logical fallacy" necessary US (western) history ,foreign policy, inc. Full spectrum dominance, US/British oil interests, the regular use of "terrorists" by the west to advance western foreign policy, all speak for themselves.

Such assertions are completely irrelevant to the question of what happened on 9/11. Thruthies spend a lot of nattering about how little pieces of information support their theory but they do not have a single coherent and plausible story arc that explains exactly how such a hoax could have been orchestrated. You can natter as much as you want about bits of inconclusive information but the nattering means nothing if you can put the pieces together.

are you a "fan" of history? If not, I suggest you read some "history" and you will understand that this is not the 1st time for a 911 type event. Educate yourself.

[Riverwind]

are you a "fan" of history? If not, I suggest you read some "history" and you will understand that this is not the 1st time for a 911 type event. Educate yourself.

So what? There are historical precedents for governments setting up secret death camps. Does that mean we should believe that FEMA has secret death camps today?

There is not one shred of CONCLUSIVE evidence that show that 9/11 was a government inpired plot. More importantly, there is no rational story arc that would explain why a government plot would unfold the way things did on 9/11.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not suggesting " taking advantage."

I'm suggesting full participation & knowledge.

No"logical fallacy" necessary US (western) history ,foreign policy, inc. Full spectrum dominance, US/British oil interests, the regular use of "terrorists" by the west to advance western foreign policy, all speak for themselves.

Even you CANNOT deny that, unless one is a polyanna, and you are not.

Then spell it out....don't just suggest.....unless your assertions are so weak as to not support such an allegation. Talk is cheap.....where is your proof of full participation & knowledge?

Hiding behind the "US" to cloak your own nation's interests? You like to tell others to read books....read "Dark Threats and White Knights".

[kuzadd]

I'm not suggesting " taking advantage."

I'm suggesting full participation & knowledge.

No"logical fallacy" necessary US (western) history ,foreign policy, inc. Full spectrum dominance, US/British oil interests, the regular use of "terrorists" by the west to advance western foreign policy, all speak for themselves.

Even you CANNOT deny that, unless one is a polyanna, and you are not.

Then spell it out....don't just suggest.....unless your assertions are so weak as to not support such an allegation. Talk is cheap.....where is your proof of full participation & knowledge?

Hiding behind the "US" to cloak your own nation's interests? You like to tell others to read books....read "Dark Threats and White Knights".

I spelled it out, and could have gone further, did you read it all? inc links?

doubtful? But then I don't think you need to anyway.

I don't need to hide behind the "US" if you notice I cite, western interests in brackets, but, too bad the US is the "leader of the pack"

But don't change the topic.

The fact is the US(western interests) had the motive, the means ,and was going to benefit from 9/11, in so many ways.

UNDENIABLE FACTS.

come on BC, OIL is the US's "interest" going way back, an interest they will, and they say so quite explicity, the will control, by all means.

BTW: I checked out the book.

Unfortunately I am working on "Puppetmasters" at this time, then it is on to "After the Empire" The breakdown of the American order, by Emmanuel Todd, then it is on to a book by Helen Caldicott "The New Nuclear Danger" . So I am booked up at this time on my reading!

In case you haven't noticed, I am an avid reader, et tu ?

[sharkman]

I'm not suggesting " taking advantage."

I'm suggesting full participation & knowledge.

No"logical fallacy" necessary US (western) history ,foreign policy, inc. Full spectrum dominance, US/British oil interests, the regular use of "terrorists" by the west to advance western foreign policy, all speak for themselves.

Even you CANNOT deny that, unless one is a polyanna, and you are not.

These silly comments amount to trolling for reaction, there is no proof, just the wild eyed feelings of conspiracy theorists. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't need to hide behind the "US" if you notice I cite, western interests in brackets, but, too bad the US is the "leader of the pack"

But don't change the topic.

The fact is the US(western interests) had the motive, the means ,and was going to benefit from 9/11, in so many ways.

UNDENIABLE FACTS.

come on BC, OIL is the US's "interest" going way back, an interest they will, and they say so quite explicity, the will control, by all means.

You have no facts...just unproven allegations. Your own rhetoric is your undoing...the US (and "the west") didn't need no steenkin' 9/11 to control resources and interests. Or was the world so much different before 9/11/2001?

Try again. In God We Trust...all others bring data.

[kuzadd]

I don't need to hide behind the "US" if you notice I cite, western interests in brackets, but, too bad the US is the "leader of the pack"

But don't change the topic.

The fact is the US(western interests) had the motive, the means ,and was going to benefit from 9/11, in so many ways.

UNDENIABLE FACTS.

come on BC, OIL is the US's "interest" going way back, an interest they will, and they say so quite explicity, the will control, by all means.

You have no facts...just unproven allegations. Your own rhetoric is your undoing...the US (and "the west") didn't need no steenkin' 9/11 to control resources and interests. Or was the world so much different before 9/11/2001?

Try again. In God We Trust...all others bring data.

funny! But bogus!

The US needed lies(false attack) to attack Vietnam, lies for (threat of attack)Nicaraugua,more lies for Panama, more lies for the Cold War, shall I go on. I can, but, you already know this stuff, don't you?

The US(west) did need 9/11 to control resources, especially in light of the scale the US (west) wanted to control the resources. Multiple invasions, country after country. For yrs and yrs and yrs and yrs. That requires alot of the populace, after all they are losing their kids, their boys and girls,husbands and wives, their tax dollars, they have to BELIEVE, it's for a reason, a heroic reason, (So they have to be manipulated to be on board.). The people always have to be on board as acknowledged, as demonstrated, as history shows, not just American history either. "Cause it works the same , in any country..............

Give me a break!

It is your own rhetoric that is your undoing! Your rhetoric, doesn't change the facts, or history!

You starting to believe the rhetoric? Your letting me down. Dam I liked your cynicism!

Or are you playing to the naive 'polyannas' here?

[kuzadd]

are you a "fan" of history? If not, I suggest you read some "history" and you will understand that this is not the 1st time for a 911 type event. Educate yourself.

So what? There are historical precedents for governments setting up secret death camps. Does that mean we should believe that FEMA has secret death camps today?

There is not one shred of CONCLUSIVE evidence that show that 9/11 was a government inpired plot. More importantly, there is no rational story arc that would explain why a government plot would unfold the way things did on 9/11.

oh Riverwind!

the ultimate in " I say it is so, therefore it is so" LOL.

non-credible as always. read anything I posted? Nope.

Why? Your mind is so closed, you are out of your leagues here, way out!

There are historical precedents for governments setting up secret death camps. Does that mean we should believe that FEMA has secret death camps today?

Does it mean we should believe it? not necessarily BUT, we sure as heck should be vigilant, and aware of the possibility, and if the signs show themselves that authoritarianism is on the rise, we need to get proactive to prevent 'death camps' as an example.

There are numerous precedents for 9/11 type events. Does that mean we should NOT question , when something like that happens? That we should just accept?

NO! it means we had better question it ,because no darn good ever came of the other 9/11 type events.

Your a "good german", Seig heil!

You know what the "good german" is???

go look it up and learn something today!

[rogue state]

maybe it was another superpower, trying to give US a lesson.

[bush_cheney2004]

funny! But bogus!

The US needed lies(false attack) to attack Vietnam, lies for (threat of attack)Nicaraugua,more lies for Panama, more lies for the Cold War, shall I go on. I can, but, you already know this stuff, don't you?

The US(west) did need 9/11 to control resources, especially in light of the scale the US (west) wanted to control the resources. Multiple invasions, country after country. For yrs and yrs and yrs and yrs. That requires alot of the populace, after all they are losing their kids, their boys and girls,husbands and wives, their tax dollars, they have to BELIEVE, it's for a reason, a heroic reason, (So they have to be manipulated to be on board.). The people always have to be on board as acknowledged, as demonstrated, as history shows, not just American history either. "Cause it works the same , in any country..............

Give me a break!

It is your own rhetoric that is your undoing! Your rhetoric, doesn't change the facts, or history!

You starting to believe the rhetoric? Your letting me down. Dam I liked your cynicism!

Or are you playing to the naive 'polyannas' here?

Still no facts proving complicity for the US government with 9/11 attacks, just more regurgitated references that lack historical context. The US was in Vietnam long before 1964, and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution didn't require aircraft flying into the Empire State Building and Pentagon. Using your logic, the USA became a superpower because Britain and her minions (i.e. Canada) planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Did President Truman help plan the attack on South Korea too? LOL!

[stignasty]

Researchers at Purdue University have created a simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what likely happened when a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001.

[Riverwind]

There are numerous precedents for 9/11 type events. Does that mean we should NOT question , when something like that happens? That we should just accept?

It means that you should actually look at the facts for once instead of making up bizarre fantasies. The facts all point to one thing: that 9/11 attacks were carried out by muslim extremists.

As I said before there is no coherent story arc that presumes involvement of the US government that expains what happened on 9/11. Without that kind of explaination you are wasting your time with your 'questioning'.

For example, if there were people in the US government that were willing to stage such a hoax then not getting caught would be their #1 priority since getting caught would likely land them in jail and completely undermine the agenda that they wished to promote. That means that these hoaxers would have done no more than the minimum required to get the effect that they needed to reduce the chances of them getting caught.

Four planes sent to different locations + explosives in three buildings is way more than the minimum required. One plane (maybe two) crashing into the WTC would have been sufficient to get the american public to support a war in afgahnistan and/or iraq. OTH, an attack with as many planes as possible makes a lot of sense if it was planned by someone like Osama Bin Laden.

Furthermore, these hoaxers would have made sure that they implicated the right countries. It makes no sense for a hoaxer that wants the US to invade iraq to put the blame on Saudi nationals. They woudl have made sure that iraq was blamed.

Truthies avoid providing a coherent story line because they know that they cannot produce one that makes any sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Furthermore, these hoaxers would have made sure that they implicated the right countries. It makes no sense for a hoaxer that wants the US to invade iraq to put the blame on Saudi nationals. They woudl have made sure that iraq was blamed.

Truthies avoid providing a coherent story line because they know that they cannot produce one that makes any sense.

Agreed...they want us to believe that the same administration they label as dysfunctional and incompetent was able to flawlessly execute the biggest conspiracy in US history after only eight months in office, while totally discounting prior attacks on American interests.

The "Truthies" want anything but the "truth", because it would spoil the game. They claim that the "official story" is just another conspiracy theory, hoping to elevate their own twisted yarns in the public eye. The US government doesn't have all the answers, but the Truthies sure do....yahoooooo!

[GostHacked]

Agreed...they want us to believe that the same administration they label as dysfunctional and imcompetent was able to flawlessly execute the biggest conspiracy in US history after only eight months in office, while totally discounting prior attacks on American interests.

American interests. Not the USA itself. There are attacks on American Interests since 9/11 as well. So we should not be so quick to discount those facts either.

And if you have a President that just plays dumb, and he is very good at it, then you can pull off the big one. Could be part of the plan to be the most incompetent Administration ever, so no one would ever suspect that they had their hands in the plot.

Not like you will believe anything I say. But there it is for what it is worth to you.

[Riverwind]

And if you have a President that just plays dumb, and he is very good at it, then you can pull off the big one..

Any group who staged such a hoax would have to be pretty intelligent. Intelligent people would not risk everything on a completely convoluted plot similar to what we saw on 9/11. Intelligent people with any experience planning projects would have minimized the number of variables and the number of people involved. This means they would have limited the attack to one or two planes and they would not have bothered with risking discovery by planting explosives in three buildings. Anyone with the ability to plant explosives in building undetected would not need to blow up buildings to destroy evidence. They would have many other more reliable ways to accomplish the same thing.

If you opened your mind you would realize how completely irrational the thruthie theories are.

[bush_cheney2004]

American interests. Not the USA itself. There are attacks on American Interests since 9/11 as well. So we should not be so quick to discount those facts either.

And if you have a President that just plays dumb, and he is very good at it, then you can pull off the big one. Could be part of the plan to be the most incompetent Administration ever, so no one would ever suspect that they had their hands in the plot.

Not like you will believe anything I say. But there it is for what it is worth to you.

Not worth much....US "interests" included bombed embassies and the USS Cole before Bush ever came along. Then there was the WTC attack in 1993 (NYC is in the USA "itself")....gee...was that engineered by Al Gore to sell global warming books?

[FascistLibertarian]

I cant understand how more than 50% of people here can say it was an inside job.

Wow.

Thats really sad.