Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Was 9/11 an inside job?

View Poll Results: Was 9/11 an inside job?
Poll Options:
Absolutely not. I'm a nationalist douche. Heil Bush! 8 votes (15.69%)
I'm sure we could have done more to prevent 9/11, but we didn't have a hand in it at all. 18 votes (35.29%)
They didn't plan it, but they sure did try to find ways to exploit it! 14 votes (27.45%)
The gov't planned it, and carried it out sucessfully. The gov't official story is a fairy tale. 11 votes (21.57%)
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll
Was 9/11 an inside job?
Thread Tools
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2005, 06:05 PM
 
How do you explain THIS?

I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. -Sen. Bob Grahm(SOURCE)
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."(FOX NEWS VIDEO PROOF)
Bush is too good of a guy to have gotten involved.

If it's true, it would have been the globalists working in conjunction with shady elements of the NSA and Mossad. Don't forget that in the 1992 and 2000 PNAC reports they said they would need a new pearl harbor to hurry defense spending. It's not a coincidence that defense spending (which is run by the military industrial complex) has skyrocketed since 9/11. The Bush family personally profits from this. However I know Bush thinks he is genuinely fighting Arab terrorists.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11 that could cast doubt on the official story.

First of all, what the heck happened to WTC 7? In the official FEMA report, they state that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire. I'm sorry, but when in the history of mankind has a building ever collapsed on its own just because of a few small fires inside? Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, has admitted in plain view on a PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" that they decided to "pull" the building which is industry lingo for bringing down via demolitions.

We have seismographic evidence, along with witness, firefighter testimonies of secondary explosions and bombs in the buildings, you know, the types that are used to professional demolish tall buildings.

We have reports from people who worked in the Twin Towers that on the weekend before 9/11, there was a powerdown condition, the reason given that they needed to upgrade cabling. No security cameras or anything would have been on, and would have been a perfect opportunity for engineers to have slipped in the buildings on a quiet weekend and place all the explosives inside the building.

In 1945 a B-23 crashed into the Empire State Buildings. Gee, I wonder why that building wasn't brought down by a plane crashing into it...

The only hypothesis that could explain why the twin towers collapsed was that explosives were wired to the buildings and that brought it down.

The world class architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."

Lots of unanswered questions...guys...

Go read the official FEMA report. WTC 7 supposedly collapsed because of the small fire inside, yet Larry Silverstein has admitted in plain view in a PBS documentary (Source) that the building was pulled (industry jargon for bringing down via controlled demolition)! (MP3 source)

This is the small fire I speak of



Why didn't this 56 story skyscraper, one of Venezuela's tallest buildings, collapse from this massive fire if the WTC 7 supposedly collapsed from a fire that was much smaller and didn't burn as long?

But why would the government lie about the fate of WTC 7, when it's obvious that it was brought down by controlled demolition? There are lots of people who would be happy with it being brought down:
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." (Source)

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. (Source)

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. (Source)
As for the seismographic evidence:

In New York, police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a "planned implosion" designed to catch bystanders watching from the street. (Source


Is it just by.."chance", that the Verizon and Federal Building are standing just fine unaffected by the crash site?

WTC 7 was pulled, which contradicts the gov't lie that it fell on it's own from a small fire.

Again to clarify. I don't think Bush was personally involved in this, but he has personally profited from the increased defense spending since 9/11, no doubt.

Also, it's a common error to associate the CIA with these kinds of things. The CIA had nothing to do with 9/11. They are the good guys, they are off collecting info on brown-skinned baddies. Probably shady elements of the NSA and Mossad backed us up.

If you read the 1992 PNAC reports, (the 2000 edition is a bit watered down), it says we would need a new Pearl Harbor to enact a more assertive defense policy.
Additional Reading

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/company/index.html
“The Carlyle Group is one of the world’s largest private equity firms, with more than $18.3 billion under management. With 23 funds across five investment disciplines (management-led buyouts, real estate, leveraged finance, venture capital and turnaround), Carlyle combines global vision with local insight, relying on a top-flight team of nearly 300 investment professionals operating out of offices in 14 countries to uncover superior opportunities in North America, Europe, and Asia._ Carlyle focuses on sectors in which it has demonstrated expertise: aerospace & defense, automotive & transportation, consumer, energy & power, healthcare, industrial, real estate, technology & business services, and telecommunications & media.”

Bush has investments in this group. But not just him, a lot of Clinton's people too.

Again, I don't think Bush was personally involved in 9/11 if it turns out that it was an inside job.

I think he truly believed there were WMD in Iraq since bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee fed him (and John Kerry) the same intelligence. That's why there are so many Democratic quotes about Saddam's WMD. Everyone believed it. However, Knight Ridder has reports of low level CIA people saying how top level administrators are exaggerating the evidence. There's lots of evidence that the amount of pressure put on low level CIA analysts could have caused the evidence and reasons for going to war to be distorted.

But again, Bush isn't an evil genius. I maintain that.

50 years from now when the archives are handed over to the public domain and we get more info, and it turns out to be an inside job, shady elements of the NSA and the Mossad, I predict, will be the culprits.

Oh, and the Mossad. Well it's obvious. Israel was hoping throughout the 90s that America would come on board and launch a war against Arab terrorists.
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].”
HEY MACINTOLOGIST, DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE ALL THIS CRAP OR ARE YOU PUSHING OUR BUTTONS?
When you theorize or predict something, you aren't saying flat out that you believe it happened. But you find the evidence that supports it, and it casts serious doubt on the official gov't story.

I will say "I don't know", which is better than giving a straight answer. It's like asking how life began on earth. We don't know for sure, but we can predict something like abiogenesis, and collect evidence such as the dual role of RNA and others.

One possibility is the use of RNA instead of both DNA and enzymes. RNA can be replicated and can also act as a catalyst. Some reactions in the ribosome are still catalyzed by RNA. Another possible intermediate stage is the use of clay minerals to catalyze reactions. Clay minerals are very variable. Some can divide, grow and catalyze specific reaction, including the formation of polypeptides from amino acids.

We don't know for sure, but we can predict and collect the evidence to support out prediction. That's what I am doing.
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2005, 08:11 PM
 
Shoot, I'm out of foil. Will saran wrap work?
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2005, 08:41 PM
 
Originally posted by sideus:
Shoot, I'm out of foil. Will saran wrap work?
Pathetic at best.

Next.
     
JohnSmithXTREME
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2005, 08:58 PM
 
oh my god you're obsessed! there are only two outcomes of this type of speculation:

1) you're wrong, and you've wasted your time worrying about nothing
2) you're actually right, but you can't really prove it and nobody will believe you anyways, so you've changed nothing

in any case I can probably find loads of compelling but contradictory and inaccurate evidence on the internet to support any number of failed conspiracy theories. there's quite a lot of evidence out there supporting the theory that the world is flat, but does that mean there's a circular-world-conspiracy? no.
( Last edited by JohnSmithXTREME; Feb 22, 2005 at 09:03 PM. )
     
Daemon2
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2005, 11:21 PM
 
Wow, I'm probably the biggest Bush-hater there is, but this is just stupid.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2005, 11:49 PM
 
Just put tin foil over our screen and dr. conspiracy will disappear.

I'm sure he was one of those people that said the Pentagon was hit with a shoulder mounted rocket.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 02:38 AM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
oh my god you're obsessed! there are only two outcomes of this type of speculation:

1) you're wrong, and you've wasted your time worrying about nothing
2) you're actually right, but you can't really prove it and nobody will believe you anyways, so you've changed nothing

in any case I can probably find loads of compelling but contradictory and inaccurate evidence on the internet to support any number of failed conspiracy theories. there's quite a lot of evidence out there supporting the theory that the world is flat, but does that mean there's a circular-world-conspiracy? no.
I believe that would be a spherical-world-conspiracy. It could still be circular if it was flat.

Nemo me impune lacesset
     
bubblewrap
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 10:37 AM
 
To create a universe
You must taste
The forbidden fruit.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 10:53 AM
 
It was the masonic czars that ordered it ... not.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 12:00 PM
 
I wouldn't put it past our government to consider doing such a thing, but I very much doubt they would actually go through with it. I doubt this would be out of any kind of altruism, though; the risk of being caught is simply too extreme, and the plans are too elaborate to be easily or thoroughly covered up.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 12:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Randman:
It was the masonic czars that ordered it ... not.
Yeah, we talked about it during the meeting before the attack. We decided that NYC was in need of some urban renewal.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 12:43 PM
 
One question we should be asking is, who benefits from such attacks? Certainly not Arabs, Muslims, or Al-Qaeeda (a name created by the US Gov. btw). It seems that the only group who comes out smiling from 9/11, are those who advocated a permanent military presence in the Mid-East. Those who have written numerous documents (used by the current administration) on expanding US interests in said region: The Americans.

Now, as far as who was behind 9/11, it's up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't believe that a bunch of militants (trained by the US and helped by the CIA in the past) living in caves in a 3rd world country, managed to pull this off without some major help.

So, who really benefits from these attacks?
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
I wouldn't put it past our government to consider doing such a thing, but I very much doubt they would actually go through with it. I doubt this would be out of any kind of altruism, though; the risk of being caught is simply too extreme, and the plans are too elaborate to be easily or thoroughly covered up.
Oh Governments have gotten away with far worse in the past, and they wil continue to do so. The key to denial of responsibilty of this, is in the asumption that nobody would believe such a thing could be done by a nation to its own people.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 02:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
One question we should be asking is, who benefits from such attacks? Certainly not Arabs, Muslims, or Al-Qaeeda (a name created by the US Gov. btw). It seems that the only group who comes out smiling from 9/11, are those who advocated a permanent military presence in the Mid-East. Those who have written numerous documents (used by the current administration) on expanding US interests in said region: The Americans.

Now, as far as who was behind 9/11, it's up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't believe that a bunch of militants (trained by the US and helped by the CIA in the past) living in caves in a 3rd world country, managed to pull this off without some major help.

So, who really benefits from these attacks?
Bombings of the USS Cole, our embassies, the first attempt at the World Trade Center, Pentagon... obviously all done by the US government.

OH NO... we must have also done Pearl Harbor...

     
saddino
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 03:37 PM
 
Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Popular Science debunked this bunk.
Great link.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 03:43 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Bombings of the USS Cole, our embassies, the first attempt at the World Trade Center, Pentagon... obviously all done by the US government.

OH NO... we must have also done Pearl Harbor...

Not sure how you read all of that into my post. Presume much, do we?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 03:46 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Bombings of the USS Cole, our embassies, the first attempt at the World Trade Center, Pentagon... obviously all done by the US government.

OH NO... we must have also done Pearl Harbor...

Actually many believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to force the American people to agree to war. Its funny how all the Air Craft carries escaped attack and only left a day sooner. But this is a different topic all together.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2005, 03:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
Actually many believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to force the American people to agree to war. Its funny how all the Air Craft carries escaped attack and only left a day sooner. But this is a different topic all together.

Indeed, and Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 02:30 AM
 
Some serious historians have debated whether FDR knew about plans for Pearl Harbor in advance, if not the actual date. The argument goes that without something Pearl Harbor, the Congress would never enter the European war, which Britain and Churchill were pushing for heavily.
The US knew Japanese message codes and had spies in Tokyo. Plus, the fact that a good portion of the Pacific Fleet sailed from Pearl Harbor days beforehand.
In the scheme of things, Pearl Harbor was a very minor battle, in terms of civilian and military losses. It was the psychological impact that pushed the US into war with Japan, and also with Germany.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 10:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
Not sure how you read all of that into my post. Presume much, do we?
You said: "One question we should be asking is, who benefits from such attacks? Certainly not Arabs, Muslims, or Al-Qaeeda"

So if you apply your flawed logic to the first WTC bombing, USS Cole, Embassies... Al-Qaeeda must NOT have been involved... because (in your thoughts) "they had nothing to gain"

And this isn't an "Arabs or Muslim" issue. It's a terrorist issue.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:00 AM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
You said: "One question we should be asking is, who benefits from such attacks? Certainly not Arabs, Muslims, or Al-Qaeeda"
That's quite a leap of logic, isn't it now. To posit a question on who would benefit from suh an act, is not to invite the diatribe you later put forward.

What you are saying, is that we should not ask the question who benefits from such things, quite silly if you sak me. Or perhaps you don't like to question such matters, utt rather just accept on face value, that which is put forward by others?

Also, why not aply suxch logic to past evcents? First trade center bombing? Ok, you do know that this, on court record, was a part FBI set up. No? Wait though, you wouldn't know that unless you questioned the matter.

Again, if we credit these so-called terorists with the genius of flying planes into buildings with such accuracy, then shouldn't we credit them also with a little foresight? Meaning, don't you think they would calculate the efects of such bombings? I mean if you lok at other so-called terorist groups, usuially the agenda does adbvance sligjtly for them. The IA, the Basques, Tamil Tigers, exc. So what exactly did Al-Qaeeda benefit out of this? The only ones to benefit, so far, are the Americans. Of coursew, we do know hat Al-Qaeeda was created by the Americans in 80's Afghanistan.

Deal with it, it's a simple observation of fact.

Edit: I've expanded on my reasoning behind the idea of who gains the most. Just read further down. Might explain it a bit clearer for you, and not seem so open-ended.
( Last edited by Deimos; Feb 24, 2005 at 12:27 PM. )
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:05 AM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Y
So if you apply your flawed logic to the first WTC bombing, USS Cole, Embassies... Al-Qaeeda must NOT have been involved... because (in your thoughts) "they had nothing to gain"
Excuse me, but did I say Al-Qaeeda had nothing to do with this? I posited that who benefits out of this, was the Americans. Now, you will take note that I hinted at Al-Qaeeda beng merely a cell of the CIA. So, Al-Qaeeda, who by their rhetoric are pushng a Muslim cause, have done nothing to advance the Muslim agenda, or anything Islamic. All they have done is create a dismal outlook for Muslims today. The only ones who have gotten anything out of this, has been the Americams, with the use of Al-Qaeeda.

You think that Governments are so short-sighted that they din't see this coming?, especially when they created such groups? You think that woth all the tri-lateral groups diocuments on dominating the Mid-East, that we can olhy assume that the American agenda in the Mid-East has borne fruit via such self-creaed terrorist acts?
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:08 AM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

And this isn't an "Arabs or Muslim" issue. It's a terrorist issue.
Ah yes, terrorists aer just one big lovable, labeled group. WTF? So the Basques are just like Al-Qaaeda, The Tamils are like the IRA? What do you think a terrorist stands for? Just the sheer hell of bomboing people without a cause?

Read up on Al-Qaeeda, dude.

Thing is, was the Taliban a terorist group? Why was Afghanistan bombed again? Did the Taliban bomb the WTC?
     
JohnSmithXTREME
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:10 AM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
One question we should be asking is, who benefits from such attacks?
... The Americans.

Now, as far as who was behind 9/11, it's up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't believe that a bunch of militants (trained by the US and helped by the CIA in the past) living in caves in a 3rd world country, managed to pull this off without some major help.

So, who really benefits from these attacks?
It doesn't take very much to see through your thinly veiled implication that the US was behind 9/11. I really don't see what is wrong with Mitchel's interpretation of your posts.

If you're going to say the US was likely behind 9/11, that's fine, but don't get all worked up when somebody draws together the basic parts of your argument.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:11 AM
 
What people don't know is, is that the US had a series of plans for the Mid-Eadst, long before any bombings happened in the US. all that was missing was that noe evebt to justify this current coursew of action. Don't believe me? Read up on any documents put forth by hawkish policy mkers who posited such mattes, and there you go, someone who benefits from an act like the WTC bombings.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:13 AM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
It doesn't take very much to see through your thinly veiled implication that the US was behind 9/11. I really don't see what is wrong with Mitchel's interpretation of your posts.

If you're going to say the US was likely behind 9/11, that's fine, but don't get all worked up when somebody draws together the basic parts of your argument.
Ah yes, piecng together wht you think I'm saying. Yet, I asked the simple quesyton of "who benfits from such acts".

I forget, in ths new world of ours, ewr cab't ask sich thnigs, can we? It must be the big bad bogeyman out there.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:16 AM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:


If you're going to say the US was likely behind 9/11, that's fine, but don't get all worked up when somebody draws together the basic parts of your argument.
And what is my argument? do tell. Since unlike some, I'm not just coming out and saying, "It was them Arabs". Least I have honesty of saying, "I don't know who did it". Of course, you'd have read me saying that in my very first post here, wouldn't you.
     
JohnSmithXTREME
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
Ah yes, piecng together wht you think I'm saying. Yet, I asked the simple quesyton of "who benfits from such acts".

I forget, in ths new world of ours, ewr cab't ask sich thnigs, can we? It must be the big bad bogeyman out there.
All I said was "don't gell all worked up when somebody draws together the basic parts of your arguments." Face it, mitchel was right in interpreting your post for what is.

You've got a decent argument; neo-conservatives have had plans for the middle east for ages. Anything is possible, the US may very well have wanted a terrorist attack as an impetus. I'm not saying that you shouldn't raise these points.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:24 AM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
All I said was "don't gell all worked up when somebody draws together the basic parts of your arguments." Face it, mitchel was right in interpreting your post for what is.
No, he wasn't right in leaping to conclusions on my position. That is he oldest trick of beating down opinions that steer clear of any official lines. Dare to ask one line of quesitoning, then one is guilty of the whole baggage of so-called conspiracy theories. it's a nice way to hijack the discussion and not actaully reply to the points made.

It still stands. Who has benefiited most out of the so-called Al-Qaeeda attacks? Not Muslims (whom Al-Qaeeda claims to fight for). tghe Muslim world ios currently being dictate dto by the US, and the remit of the war on terrorism has now taken a turn to cover almost anything that the US deems to be tackled.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:28 AM
 
Anyway, it is nigh impossible to discover the masters behind these acts. But those who do gain form it, gives us an insight into perhaps what is really going on, and has been for the last 30 years.

One thing to note, Kings, Governments, and nation-states do not plan for the next 3 years, not even for the next 10. They plan, and conceive a given set of actions that lead to several, or just one outcome. They do this with at least the 30 year window in their minds. This is well-known throught policy-makers in the US and Europe. Now go back 30 years, compare today with then, and we see the course of action being put into place.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
It still stands. Who has benefiited most out of the so-called Al-Qaeeda attacks? Not Muslims (whom Al-Qaeeda claims to fight for). tghe Muslim world ios currently being dictate dto by the US, and the remit of the war on terrorism has now taken a turn to cover almost anything that the US deems to be tackled.
Do you really think that question logically proves anything?

Think about this: Suppose you are bigger and stronger than me, but despite that reality, I think I can suckerpunch you and get away with it. I walk up to you and out of the blue punch you in the nose. That makes you angry, and being bigger and stronger than me, you beat the living crap out of me. I am now worse off than I would have been had I thought twice about punching a bigger guy in the nose.

By your argument the fact that the little delusional guy came out of the encounter worse off than the bigger stronger guy is proof that the bigger stronger guy really wanted to be suckerpunched -- just so he would have an excuse to do what he could have done anyway. But in fact, the only reason you beat the living crap out of me was because I made the serious miscalculation of punching you. I was wrong, and my error cost me an asswhooping.

History is full of such serious miscalculations. Every time a country starts and loses a war they started, it is because of such a miscalculation. The same is no less likely with a non-governmental group like al-Queda. Especially so when their ideology is so delusional in the first place. The fact that they are coming out of this war worse off than they would have been is no evidence whatsoever that they weren't entirely responsible for their own crazy decision to start killing the citizens of a superpower in its own cities.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:43 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you really think that question logically proves anything?
Which is why I put forward this question, and not said it was the definitive one. It is one that isn't asked all that much, but which shouldn't be ignored, especially given the very precise nature of this.

For example, this could be argued against if we applied your logic. But what raises the barrier in this topic, is that the US had very specific goals and aims (most of which are now being implemented) prior to any bombings. Is it coincidence, or merely a design that takes time to put in place and carry out?

That is what I was saying, not that this is what happened.

I agree with your scenario above, but in light of my other arguments, I can't neglect what I posited about who gains the most.
     
JohnSmithXTREME
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
No, he wasn't right in leaping to conclusions on my position. That is he oldest trick of beating down opinions that steer clear of any official lines. Dare to ask one line of quesitoning, then one is guilty of the whole baggage of so-called conspiracy theories.
He wasn't leaping to conclusions.

1. you said that the US had decades old ambitions to enter the middle east
2. you said that the US needed an attack as an impetus
3. you said that the US benefits from wars in the middle east
4. you said that you "don't know" who carried out 9/11, but that you were "pretty sure" it wasn't al qaida.

1+2+3+4= likely US involvement in 9/11


If you're going to bring this up for discussion, and put forward such an argument, then you should defend your stance rather than claim that people are trying to silence you for questioning conventional explanations.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
He wasn't leaping to conclusions.

He was leaping to conclusions, or did you just ignore his reply to me? He deeemd to dismiss something by bringing up silly matters such as Pearl Harbour. To make slight, and atack the arguemnt based on that, is leaping to conclusions.

It wasn't until his reply today that he actually decided to reply in a half-descent manner.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:50 AM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:

If you're going to bring this up for discussion, and put forward such an argument, then you should defend your stance rather than claim that people are trying to silence you for questioning conventional explanations.
I'm sorry, but your paranoi button is curretly on. I asked him to deal with my post, not ramblings on Pearl Harbour. And what was my position? To put forward the notion of those who gain frm such attacks.

I think what you'r ereading into my words is something you need to take back into control, and not read into with your own silliness.
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 11:52 AM
 
Look, John smith, if you're keen to get this back on topic, the nlet me do that. Why not let the guy I draggeed up on this one point answer me, why you? From what I see, you've dragged tihs on well past any meaning, or perhaps you are him, who knows.

Let him reply, ok?

So if you're wanting this to be about my stance, then let's do it, rather than repeating yourself tirelessly about my other replies.
     
JohnSmithXTREME
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 12:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:

I think what you'r ereading into my words is something you need to take back into control, and not read into with your own silliness.
For God's Sake! I'm not reading into anything. You are arguing that it is likely the US was involved in 9/11, plain and simple. Why can't you just admit it? I'm not calling you a conspiracy nut or telling you to stop asking questions. What you're doing is making an argument about something, and whenever somebody criticises it you hide behind the excuse of "I never said that! You're putting words into my mouth!"
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 12:07 PM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
For God's Sake! I'm not reading into anything. You are arguing that it is likely the US was involved in 9/11, plain and simple. Why can't you just admit it? I'm not calling you a conspiracy nut or telling you to stop asking questions. What you're doing is making an argument about something, and whenever somebody criticises it you hide behind the excuse of "I never said that! You're putting words into my mouth!"
Look, mate. You're boring the shite of me now. Let go of my argument with that other guy, ok? If you have something to say about my main argument, then say it, don't hide behind this other dude and my beef with him.

That's what you're doing. You keep saying I am hiding, or obfuscating things, but you're not even tackling my argument. You're too busy getting caught up in my one reply to that other guy.

Also, why are you putting words into my mouth? If I thought, or could prove that the US was behind 9/11, I'd do so. So you can't deal with somene like me who can actually say that they don't know, but they suspect that something bigger is going on that could involve the US?

That is my stance, nothing more, nothing less. I think that, in htis case, those who stood to gain the most are the ones behind it. Is that the US Government? Don't know. Is it some hawkish policy group? Don't know.



My oh my, what a black and white world you wish to occupy.
( Last edited by Deimos; Feb 24, 2005 at 12:14 PM. )
     
JohnSmithXTREME
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
why are you putting words into my mouth?
frankly I was hoping you would hit back at mitch with perhaps some facts or an elaboration of your theory, but I guess that isn't going to happen?
     
Deimos
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A far away place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 12:18 PM
 
Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
frankly I was hoping you would hit back at mitch with perhaps some facts or an elaboration of your theory, but I guess that isn't going to happen?
Well, that's all you had to ask, rather than going off on a tangent about me and that other guy.

If you wanted me to expand on my current thoughts, then just ask. I'm not a closed book in regards to my opinions.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 12:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
Which is why I put forward this question, and not said it was the definitive one. It is one that isn't asked all that much, but which shouldn't be ignored, especially given the very precise nature of this.

For example, this could be argued against if we applied your logic. But what raises the barrier in this topic, is that the US had very specific goals and aims (most of which are now being implemented) prior to any bombings. Is it coincidence, or merely a design that takes time to put in place and carry out?

That is what I was saying, not that this is what happened.

I agree with your scenario above, but in light of my other arguments, I can't neglect what I posited about who gains the most.
Your question is asked a lot by two groups of people: people wedded to conspiracy theories, and people who want to deflect blame from al-Queda and other extremist Islamic groups, and the repressive governments that support them. Other than people with those agendas, no, it isn't asked all that much. That fact should probably give you pause, and it shouldn't surprise you that you are being lumped in with those groups given the way you introduced the issue. Your jihadist guy with the Iranian flag sig probably doesn't help much either.

As for groups within the US government, I get pretty tired of reading rants about neocon plots. If you really want to approach it with an open mind, I'd ask you to go down to the library and take a look at the professional literature on terrorism, the middle east, and democracy promotion from the 1990s. All of these issues were being discussed quite openly throughout that decade by people with all kinds of points of view. Not just the so-called "neocons" but also people in the Clinton Administration, and other liberal democrats, as well as people from other countries with an interest in security issues. People in the field had been predicting something like 9/11 for a decade or more. 9/11 was a shock to the public, but other than the details, it wasn't at all unexpected to people who professionally thought about such issues.

Of course, seeing reality is never quite like imagining an academic scenario. In fact though, many of those scenarios make 9/11 look small -- which has a lot to do with why policy since 9/11 has focussed on things like the idea of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue states with connections to terrorism.

That implementation of a well thought out strategy should have followed a shock like 9/11 shouldn't really have been surprising. That's what governments usually do when something dramatic happens that seems to junk the old model. Now, you can call that "opportunism" -- but all that is doing is editorializing a dark motive. We don't say that Roosevelt was an opportunist who was benefitted from the Great Depression, even though his policies probably would never have been implemented but for the Great Depression. I see no need for perjoratives here either. Something big happened, the old model was seen as bankrupt, and ideas that had been floating about for a decade or more seemed to have the answer. You don't need any plot to explain what has happened, it is all quite transparent and public.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 24, 2005 at 12:53 PM. )
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 12:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Deimos:
Oh Governments have gotten away with far worse in the past, and they wil continue to do so. The key to denial of responsibilty of this, is in the asumption that nobody would believe such a thing could be done by a nation to its own people.
Governments get away with atrocities by making them politically popular. This is how the US government got away with, for example, the Japanese internment camps of World War II; they were politically popular at the time.

I fail to see how orchestrating 9/11 could be made politically popular, and I fail to see how even Dubya himself could be braindead enough to try.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2005, 04:51 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your question is asked a lot by two groups of people: people wedded to conspiracy theories, and people who want to deflect blame from al-Queda and other extremist Islamic groups, and the repressive governments that support them. Other than people with those agendas, no, it isn't asked all that much. That fact should probably give you pause, and it shouldn't surprise you that you are being lumped in with those groups given the way you introduced the issue. Your jihadist guy with the Iranian flag sig probably doesn't help much either.

As for groups within the US government, I get pretty tired of reading rants about neocon plots. If you really want to approach it with an open mind, I'd ask you to go down to the library and take a look at the professional literature on terrorism, the middle east, and democracy promotion from the 1990s. All of these issues were being discussed quite openly throughout that decade by people with all kinds of points of view. Not just the so-called "neocons" but also people in the Clinton Administration, and other liberal democrats, as well as people from other countries with an interest in security issues. People in the field had been predicting something like 9/11 for a decade or more. 9/11 was a shock to the public, but other than the details, it wasn't at all unexpected to people who professionally thought about such issues.

Of course, seeing reality is never quite like imagining an academic scenario. In fact though, many of those scenarios make 9/11 look small -- which has a lot to do with why policy since 9/11 has focussed on things like the idea of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue states with connections to terrorism.

That implementation of a well thought out strategy should have followed a shock like 9/11 shouldn't really have been surprising. That's what governments usually do when something dramatic happens that seems to junk the old model. Now, you can call that "opportunism" -- but all that is doing is editorializing a dark motive. We don't say that Roosevelt was an opportunist who was benefitted from the Great Depression, even though his policies probably would never have been implemented but for the Great Depression. I see no need for perjoratives here either. Something big happened, the old model was seen as bankrupt, and ideas that had been floating about for a decade or more seemed to have the answer. You don't need any plot to explain what has happened, it is all quite transparent and public.
Great post.

Although, I will say that proponents of these plans have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid debating them on their merits.

In fact, I seem to recall anyone talking about the transparent adoption of a modified Kissinger plan for the middle east was labeld a lunatic conspiracy theorist. The admin wasn't looking to permanently shift the balance of power in the middle east, it was simply acting to prevent very specific attacks that were imminent or soon to be imminent.

Namely, if the new policy actually is the PNAC plan, we should be talking about it on its merits and not hiding behind the curtain of "we're just responding to pending attacks".

Liberal Internationalism is a valid position. I'm just curious why the post WWII liberal internationalists stated their case very clearly and concisely while the new breed insist on playing never-ending game of "look out behind you!!"
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2005, 04:00 AM
 
Do I believe the US blew up the WTC, NO!!!!!!!
Do I believe that the US Gov knew of a pending attack YES
Do I believe the US Gov knew the details of the attack NO
Do I believe that perhaps some members in the US Gov had a idea of what it could be and the target YES

I believe that some members in the US Gov, not Bush himself knew that there was a plot to smash a plane into buildings. I don't think they new how many or when and didnt think the scope of the attack could be as bad as it was. I do believe they might have allowed it to happen to force the Middle East attacks. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Bin Laden was the attacker and that it WAS NOT a inside job. These are my personal opinions which are based on events after the fact, different news stories, history and logic.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2005, 08:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
Do I believe the US blew up the WTC, NO!!!!!!!
Do I believe that the US Gov knew of a pending attack YES
Do I believe the US Gov knew the details of the attack NO
Do I believe that perhaps some members in the US Gov had a idea of what it could be and the target YES

I believe that some members in the US Gov, not Bush himself knew that there was a plot to smash a plane into buildings. I don't think they new how many or when and didnt think the scope of the attack could be as bad as it was. I do believe they might have allowed it to happen to force the Middle East attacks. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Bin Laden was the attacker and that it WAS NOT a inside job. These are my personal opinions which are based on events after the fact, different news stories, history and logic.
Whoa. We agree, for the most part. I don't think they knew that the plot was to smash planes into buildings, but other than that we're pretty much in agreement: the government knew that someone was going to do something with airplanes at some time.

My God; with evidence that specific they should have caught these guys in July![/sarcasm]

There are plenty of reasons to hate the government. Not having superheroes on staff isn't one of them, though.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2005, 02:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Whoa. We agree, for the most part. I don't think they knew that the plot was to smash planes into buildings, but other than that we're pretty much in agreement: the government knew that someone was going to do something with airplanes at some time.

My God; with evidence that specific they should have caught these guys in July![/sarcasm]

There are plenty of reasons to hate the government. Not having superheroes on staff isn't one of them, though.
It wouldn't have taken superheroes. Not even close.

But its that just my opinion.

I do strongly agree that the NSC knew some kind of terrorist shyt was going down and they didn't really do much because it was believed that it would yield useful political capital. They just didn't realize how big the shyt would be that hit the fan.

But that doesn't excuse it. I strongly belive the plot could have been largely if not entirely disrupted and prevented. We were not helpless or blind to prevent it. Not at all.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2005, 04:53 PM
 
Deimos,

Please show me one shred of evidence that the US was involved in the planing and/or execution of 9/11.

Athens,

Please show me one shred of evidence where the US KNEW of impending attacks. And I'm not talking about vague "intelligence reports" that point to airplanes.

The truth is, we weren't. I'm sure you can piece together something from the million or so conspiracy theory sites out there... but show me a site with some type of reputation that's willing to say that the U.S. government was involved.
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2005, 04:46 PM
 
Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Popular Science debunked this bunk.
The Popular Science/Mechanics commentary was based upon scientific fact and reality, not the drivel that pollutes the internet regarding 9-11.

Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2005, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It wouldn't have taken superheroes. Not even close.

But its that just my opinion.
All right, then; fair enough. How do you believe it could have been done?
We were not helpless or blind to prevent it. Not at all.
Helpless? Perhaps not. But we were blind, which amounts to helplessness in the end anyway.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 03:15 PM
 
It was an inside job. The bad guys got *inside* the planes. Flew them *inside* our airspace, and then *inside* two of our tallest buildings. Then they became part of the outside, along with the innocent peole they murdered.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,