• 9/11
    355 replies, posted
I doubt that if it was the government there would be no way to keep it secret
[QUOTE=Ryukrawr?;35673678]A green light to invade a country that has oil n shit [/QUOTE] Thing is; if we were going to invade a country for it's oil, why not Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil, coastal shipping, and many of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Besides, if you look at the amount of oil shipping that's been going on following the invasion of Iraq there hasn't actually been any large-scale extraction of oil for American interests, in fact we probably lost more then we gained from invasion.
Three points I'd like to make that pretty much destroy the conspiracy theories: 1. There was no stand down, in the entire decade before 9/11 one aircraft was forced down and it took more than twice the amount of time the hijacked planes were in the air, there was not any secret standdown, planes were sent up to intercept the second the government became aware of what was going on, they even broke protocol and the sound barrier to try and get there in time, they simply couldn't do it fast enough. 2. That whole "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" consists of 00.01% of the world's architects and engineers. 3. This is the Bush administration we're talking about. [B]The Bush administration[/B], do you really think they're capable of anything near this? This is not a question of whether or not the US government had the motive to do something like this, it is a question of whether or not the US government had the capability to do this and not be blamed, and the answer is no. We got outplayed, simple as that.
Oh christ, not this again. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;35674870][B]2. That whole "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" consists of 00.01% of the world's architects and engineers.[/B][/QUOTE]This is absolutely vital for people to know. The vast majority of the people who signed as part of this nutcase group are either faking it, have arse-wiping-value degrees, or are in a completely unrelated field, like landscape architect. For those not in the know, that's a fucking [B]GARDENER.[/B] [editline]22nd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;35674770]Thing is; if we were going to invade a country for it's oil, why not Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil, coastal shipping, and many of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Besides, if you look at the amount of oil shipping that's been going on following the invasion of Iraq there hasn't actually been any large-scale extraction of oil for American interests, in fact we probably lost more then we gained from invasion.[/QUOTE]Not that i'm taking the conspiracy theorists' side, but invading the very beating heart of Islam wouldn't go too well.
[QUOTE=Pantz76;35672923]Yeah that went real well now didn't it.[/QUOTE] It's been great for defense contractors and some oil companies.
If you truly think the government did 9/11, you're an idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;35677939]It's been great for defense contractors and some oil companies.[/QUOTE] To lose tons of people and have to pay the families and to have oil exports in the middle east actually lessen?
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35678077]To lose tons of people and have to pay the families and to have oil exports in the middle east actually lessen?[/QUOTE]Who is having to pay families? Reducing oil exports is bad for the US economy and US consumers, but it seems only to have helped oil companies become more profitable. Mission Accomplished. War is the ultimate government program. The costs are socialized, while the profits are private. If I'm wrong about the reasons for our wars, I challenge you to come up with a motivation that makes more sense. Do you honestly think the Bush Administration was actually concerned about "weapons of mass destruction?"
[QUOTE=Ryukrawr?;35673678]A green light to invade a country that has oil n shit its a "kill 50 innocent people to save a 100 lifes" type of thing[/QUOTE] Except 9/11 only gave us a 'green light' to invade Afghanistan, which is devoid of any oil. It does have large amounts of rare minerals but US companies don't have contracts to mine any of it(last time I checked, anyway).
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;35680587]Who is having to pay families?[/QUOTE] The government? Contractors?
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;35680587]Who is having to pay families? Reducing oil exports is bad for the US economy and US consumers, but it seems only to have helped oil companies become more profitable. Mission Accomplished. War is the ultimate government program. The costs are socialized, while the profits are private. If I'm wrong about the reasons for our wars, I challenge you to come up with a motivation that makes more sense. Do you honestly think the Bush Administration was actually concerned about "weapons of mass destruction?"[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea how the military or oil companies work at all.
[QUOTE=Derpmonster;35670469]Well, personally I do not think it was the government. I am pretty sure a government like ours isn't that idiotic to crash a plane into a their own building. With thousands of civilians inside, on the plane, and on the ground. The government had nothing to gain if they did cause 9/11.[/QUOTE] minus the fuel to power a whole generation of people to support illegal international policing.
[QUOTE=q0q;35681202]minus the fuel to power a whole generation of people to support illegal international policing.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gordy H.;35680639]Except 9/11 only gave us a 'green light' to invade Afghanistan, which is devoid of any oil. It does have large amounts of rare minerals but US companies don't have contracts to mine any of it(last time I checked, anyway).[/QUOTE] Also what's illegal about being involved in the outside world?
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35680775]Do you have any idea how the military or oil companies work at all.[/QUOTE]This is not a very productive question. I, of course, at least think I know what I'm talking about. I have several such ideas, and I believe them all to be correct. If you expect me to express all of those ideas, you're either high or willfully delusional. It would take me hours, if not days, and nobody would bother reading it. [editline]22nd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=asteroidrules;35681239]Also what's illegal about being involved in the outside world?[/QUOTE] The US Constitution asserts that international treaties to which the US is a signatory are the supreme law of the land, and the US is a signatory of the UN Charter, which most international legal scholars would argue was violated by the invasion of Iraq. Further, some argue that waging war without a declaration is automatically illegal per US Constitution. Both seem pretty valid, but whether such a war is technically legal seems far less important than the fact that it was completely unwarranted.
This video sums up my sentiments. [video=youtube;QJuxb7HddOM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJuxb7HddOM[/video] Skip to 4:28 to get to the part on 9/11. I feel like oil is too often used as a reason for US invasion, but I think it has more to do with the profits that military companies make from war.
[QUOTE=joes33431;35681540]This video sums up my sentiments. [video=youtube;QJuxb7HddOM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJuxb7HddOM[/video] Skip to 4:28 to get to the part on 9/11. I feel like oil is too often used as a reason for US invasion, but I think it has more to do with the profits that military companies make from war.[/QUOTE] Russia Today is not a reliable source.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;35681398]This is not a very productive question. I, of course, at least think I know what I'm talking about. I have several such ideas, and I believe them all to be correct. If you expect me to express all of those ideas, you're either high or willfully delusional. It would take me hours, if not days, and nobody would bother reading it.[/quote] I'd be very glad to read just such a thing. Without an explanation, your argument means nothing. You might just be making shit up. [quote]The US Constitution asserts that international treaties to which the US is a signatory are the supreme law of the land, and the US is a signatory of the UN Charter, which most international legal scholars would argue was violated by the invasion of Iraq. Further, some argue that waging war without a declaration is automatically illegal per US Constitution. Both seem pretty valid, but whether such a war is technically legal seems far less important than the fact that it was completely unwarranted.[/QUOTE] UN Resolution 1441. Look it up. Regardless, why did an entirely new conspiracy about WMDs need to be constructed? Why stage 9/11?
[QUOTE=Derpmonster;35670469]Well, personally I do not think it was the government. I am pretty sure a government like ours isn't that idiotic to crash a plane into a their own building. With thousands of civilians inside, on the plane, and on the ground. The government had nothing to gain if they did cause 9/11.[/QUOTE] Well,they could have gotten oil from invading Afghanistan. But no i doubt it was staged by the government.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;35674991]This is absolutely vital for people to know. The vast majority of the people who signed as part of this nutcase group are either faking it, have arse-wiping-value degrees, or are in a completely unrelated field, like landscape architect. For those not in the know, that's a fucking [B]GARDENER.[/B][/QUOTE] Exactly, most of those "architects and engineers" don't know what they're talking about, and also let me just state something here: my father is an engineer, a real engineer, he is someone who knows what he is talking about, someone who studied long and hard at a prestigious university to learn what he is talking about, and someone who makes a living (and a pretty good one at that) proving he knows what he's talking about, and he saw 9/11 happen live on the news and he believes the official story is accurate.
I probably made a mistake from coming in here but oh well. You guys may remember me from the Pictures That Shook the World thread where I posted about a dozen graphic images of that day of Jumpers and so on. I've read a lot of articles, seen a lot of pictures and video. I've spent countless hours understanding why it collapsed and what not, purely out of curiosity. Nothing that day is suspicious, nothing at all. It was just a huge tragedy and I think most conspiracy theorists are what they are because they don't entirely understand what happened themselves or what they're really looking at in those pictures and videos. All the people I know who were actually there that day don't think it was a conspiracy either, and the sad part of all that is they're harassed by Conspiracy Theorists all the time that go as far as calling them a home and calling them liars and fakes and claiming they were never there and what not. I mean, some are absolutely fucking nuts like "Let's Roll" but that's a different story. It was a Terrorist attack, that's all it was.
[QUOTE=znk666;35687440]Well,they could have gotten oil from invading Afghanistan. But no i doubt it was staged by the government.[/QUOTE] Except, for the jillionth time, there's no oil in Afghanistan. I think you have Afghanistan confused with Iraq.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35683032]Russia Today is not a reliable source.[/QUOTE] His point about the military industrial is right though
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35683032]Russia Today is not a reliable source.[/QUOTE] Except it isn't the news source talking, it's the interviewee.
Certainly not an inside job, but it is impossible to escape from the claim that the US brought on the attack. Osama Bin Laden made his motivations quite clear, and the motivations are based in fact. [url]http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html[/url] It must follow that the need for an inside job to occur is irrational. To put it this way, when some group called kills half a million children of your group, all just to make a dictator suffer, of course there are going to be people in your group who are going to retaliate. To put it this way, if the US is going around crotch punching a bunch of countries, eventually there is going to be a country that crotch punches the US back. To all the cells who aren't aware of all the crotch punching the US has been doing, getting crotch punched by someone who is getting even is perceived as someone getting crotch punched by a douche who goes around crotch punching countries for no reason. To the slightly schizophrenic cells, it seems probable that the US crotch punched itself so it could justify crotch punching the country it has been crotch punching for the last decade.
[QUOTE=Pepin;35690371]Certainly not an inside job, but it is impossible to escape from the claim that the US brought on the attack. Osama Bin Laden made his motivations quite clear, and the motivations are based in fact. [url]http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html[/url] It must follow that the need for an inside job to occur is irrational. To put it this way, when some group called kills half a million children of your group, all just to make a dictator suffer, of course there are going to be people in your group who are going to retaliate. To put it this way, if the US is going around crotch punching a bunch of countries, eventually there is going to be a country that crotch punches the US back. To all the cells who aren't aware of all the crotch punching the US has been doing, getting crotch punched by someone who is getting even is perceived as someone getting crotch punched by a douche who goes around crotch punching countries for no reason. To the slightly schizophrenic cells, it seems probable that the US crotch punched itself so it could justify crotch punching the country it has been crotch punching for the last decade.[/QUOTE] Your post is illegible. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Even if you think it was done by the goverment, or by some evil entity, it's irrelevant. What happened was awful, but 3000 people killed by a rather simplistic plan just isn't enough to warrant invading Afghanistan, who pledged to help us after the attacks and was very skiddish about Al Qaeda in its last years.. At best bush was extremely incompetent, and at worst he let it happen. I think it's somewhere in the middle, but again it doesn't matter. The real story is what happened afterwards.
[QUOTE=fox '09;35691794]Even if you think it was done by the goverment, or by some evil entity, it's irrelevant. What happened was awful, but 3000 people killed by a rather simplistic plan just isn't enough to warrant invading Afghanistan, who pledged to help us after the attacks and was very skiddish about Al Qaeda in its last years.. At best bush was extremely incompetent, and at worst he let it happen. I think it's somewhere in the middle, but again it doesn't matter. The real story is what happened afterwards.[/QUOTE] What do you mean he "let it happen"?
[QUOTE=Derpmonster;35670469]Well, personally I do not think it was the government. I am pretty sure a government like ours isn't that idiotic to crash a plane into a their own building. With thousands of civilians inside, on the plane, and on the ground. The government had nothing to gain if they did cause 9/11.[/QUOTE] Well, if I let my crazy side explain for a second, it would make perfect sense for a government to cause tensions between radicals in order to restrict our freedoms as Americans, and gain even more power for themselves. A majority of these controversial bills that keep popping up are often stating that their main purpose is to combat terrorism. And while I highly doubt that the United States could have possibly conspired with Al-qaeda to devise this evil plan, I wouldn't put it past my government to reap the benefits of fear.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;35693240]Well, if I let my crazy side explain for a second, it would make perfect sense for a government to cause tensions between radicals in order to restrict our freedoms as Americans, and gain even more power for themselves. A majority of these controversial bills that keep popping up are often stating that their main purpose is to combat terrorism. And while I highly doubt that the United States could have possibly conspired with Al-qaeda to devise this evil plan, I wouldn't put it past my government to reap the benefits of fear.[/QUOTE] That's not true and the government isn't some singular organization with the intent of destroying your freedoms and forming a dictatorship, but even so, why stage a massive and useless conspiracy to clear the way? Hiring a crazy person from the U.S. to shoot up the WTC would have been more than sufficient.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35693216]What do you mean he "let it happen"?[/QUOTE] I speak of the memos he received, what richard clark said on july 5th 2001, etc. I'm not the conspiratorial type, but I don't think it's entirely impossible. They could of done numerous things to stop it, but they didn't even really try. This isn't important to me though, his actions after 9/11 show that he welcomed it and used it to do rather despicable things. I'd like to hear an opposing view on what happened before 9/11, if that's where you are going.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.