Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
OryHara

9/11 - Inside Job?

Was 9/11 an inside Job?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Was 9/11 an inside Job?

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      16
    • The US government was involved someway
      18
    • I don't know. Not enough evidence.
      9
    • They didn't do it, but knew it would happen.
      4

38 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

What do you think? You know what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

I think I know how the current administration thinks (this is just conjecture on my part, so don't think I actually have any evidence to back this up). I think this administration got the intelligence that said "there will be a terrorist attack in new york sometime within the next month...bla bla bla". I think the administration kind of "let it happen" so that they could use it as a tool to "rally" the people for a cause (war on terrorism) which is ironically causing more terrorism (if you talk "terror terror terror!" all the time, guess what you're gonna get? More terror)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOMETHING fishy, but I am not even going to speculate what that is. My point being, that with the amount of money and resources we have at our disposal how we were not able to prevent a couple terrorists from taking over planes shocks me, I also believe we are going down the path the current administration wants us to go down (war war war). It is slowly dragging down our image throughout the world, I would not be surprised if the world rallied against us in the coming years. Very stupid people at the top, extremely short sighted and short-term gain oriented (our country, thats what you get when you mix big business and politics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always fishy when the government takes the blame for something.

 

Usually when the government admits culpability, it's just to deflect attention from the fact that they actively caused it, instead of accidentally allowing it to happen.

 

Which is why the white houses attempts at cooperating with the congress over the US attorney scandal seems so odd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing that the administration had nothing to do with it, either because they caused it themselves, or they let it happen on purpose. George W Bush practically gooed himself thinking about his new world.

 

9/11 played right into who George W Bush has proven to be.

 

The United States started with booting a King George. Let's hope it doesnt end with another King George coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the current administration would be smart enough to come up with something like 9/11.

 

But seriously, Bush may not be the best president ever, but I think people are starting to take it a little too far. Al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the attacks already, why are we even discussing this?

 

with the amount of money and resources we have at our disposal how we were not able to prevent a couple terrorists from taking over planes shocks me

 

The world was a little different, there weren't as many security measures at airports (at a lot of places really) before the attacks of 9/11. An entire country is hard to secure, especially if you don't have a place/date. Even if we expected something, it's hard to prevent if a group of people are really determined to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But seriously, Bush may not be the best president ever, but I think people are starting to take it a little too far. Al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the attacks already, why are we even discussing this?

Really, how do you know, oh yes your media says so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We honestly have no way of knowing that Osama bin Laden isnt in some Government facility. All of his "videos" could easily be staged. I dont think there have been reports from anyone of consequence or credibility that Osama has been seen or heard from since 9/11. Though I could be wrong, and welcome any info that would refute my assertion.

 

"Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden denied any involvement with the attacks by reading a statement which was broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."[59] This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide.

 

In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks.[60] The tape was broadcast on various news networks on December 13, 2001."

 

Hm... smells like bad tuna.

 

I dont find it even remotely incomprehensible to believe that the US military captured Osama and have been coercing him into making videos which incite people either for or against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point being, that with the amount of money and resources we have at our disposal how we were not able to prevent a couple terrorists from taking over planes shocks me,

we never focused on terrorism like we do now untill after 9/11. i brought knives on planes before 9/11, security had no problem. the problem is, we are one step behind in fixing the problem, someone tried to blow thier shoes up, we then have to xray our shoes, someone try's to bring flammable liquid onboard, we cant bring liquids on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the current administration would be smart enough to come up with something like 9/11.

 

But seriously, Bush may not be the best president ever, but I think people are starting to take it a little too far. Al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the attacks already, why are we even discussing this?

The world was a little different, there weren't as many security measures at airports (at a lot of places really) before the attacks of 9/11. An entire country is hard to secure, especially if you don't have a place/date. Even if we expected something, it's hard to prevent if a group of people are really determined to make it happen.

 

My point is that it is still going to happen if somebody REALLY wants it to happen, but by putting so much of our country's focus on Terrorism...we're pissing everyday citizens off giving birth to new terrorism, in many cases WE (the American Lawmakers, military) are the terrorists as well. just my take on it anyway.

 

Also, the world has NOT changed. The actions of our current administration prove this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really, how do you know, oh yes your media says so...

 

You hit the nail on the head macgirl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, only if US citizens read/watch european/other countries media, even a very few of your own columnists/reporters/ like Frank Rich a New York Times columnist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9/11-"attack" could very well be something more than what meets the eyes. Before 9/11, no one except american intelligence had defined al-qaeda as a group. But, terrorism wasn't invented that day.

 

But I think it is time that american and people around the world try to put this in it proper context and start to spend a bit time and look around. In 2001 there was 5 times of 9/11's americans who died in car accidents, but still there haven't been done anything to prevent people from driving cars. And then you can talk about murders and gun-accidents in US. Most americans get killed by acts of their fellow countrymen.

 

In 2001 the country who experienced most terrorist acts was in Columbia (one of the countries in 'americas backyard').

 

Living is a calcalated risk, and there are no reason to restrict it more than necessary. Because, people get killed by people and it will happen again, no matter what you do.

 

When it comes down to airline security and safety it has been since the dawn been that regulations have come after the incidents.

 

Finally the common world view of americans are, they are stupid, fat, capitalistic and imperialistic. That is the sterotype. And by the politics run by the american government it is no reason to prove the stereotype. But of course most people really consider americans like everyone else. And with some exceptions i think americans will find that they are treated as good guests as most other people around the world as long as they pay the humble respect to the locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The united states is flooded with foreign drugs. Make them legal so we can start producing domestically. Cut the bad guys off at their source. The columbian cartels would be destroyed if tomorrow Bristol Myers Squib was able to start manufacturing cocaine in a vat somewhere. Not to mention that a drug dealer cant compete with a rite aid.

 

The problem of drug use exists. Current techniques not only dont curb it, they enrich criminals and terrorists. Solve the problem, dont make it worse.

 

The proceeds of heroin and opium are what funded 9/11 (assuming al-qaeda did it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 9/11-"attack" could very well be something more than what meets the eyes. Before 9/11, no one except american intelligence had defined al-qaeda as a group. But, terrorism wasn't invented that day.

 

But I think it is time that american and people around the world try to put this in it proper context and start to spend a bit time and look around. In 2001 there was 5 times of 9/11's americans who died in car accidents, but still there haven't been done anything to prevent people from driving cars. And then you can talk about murders and gun-accidents in US. Most americans get killed by acts of their fellow countrymen.

 

In 2001 the country who experienced most terrorist acts was in Columbia (one of the countries in 'americas backyard').

 

Living is a calcalated risk, and there are no reason to restrict it more than necessary. Because, people get killed by people and it will happen again, no matter what you do.

 

When it comes down to airline security and safety it has been since the dawn been that regulations have come after the incidents.

 

Finally the common world view of americans are, they are stupid, fat, capitalistic and imperialistic. That is the sterotype. And by the politics run by the american government it is no reason to prove the stereotype. But of course most people really consider americans like everyone else. And with some exceptions i think americans will find that they are treated as good guests as most other people around the world as long as they pay the humble respect to the locals.

 

 

EXACTLY! This is what I've been trying to say, but you say it much better than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 9/11-"attack" could very well be something more than what meets the eyes. Before 9/11, no one except american intelligence had defined al-qaeda as a group. But, terrorism wasn't invented that day.

 

But I think it is time that american and people around the world try to put this in it proper context and start to spend a bit time and look around. In 2001 there was 5 times of 9/11's americans who died in car accidents, but still there haven't been done anything to prevent people from driving cars. And then you can talk about murders and gun-accidents in US. Most americans get killed by acts of their fellow countrymen.

 

In 2001 the country who experienced most terrorist acts was in Columbia (one of the countries in 'americas backyard').

 

Living is a calcalated risk, and there are no reason to restrict it more than necessary. Because, people get killed by people and it will happen again, no matter what you do.

 

When it comes down to airline security and safety it has been since the dawn been that regulations have come after the incidents.

 

Finally the common world view of americans are, they are stupid, fat, capitalistic and imperialistic. That is the sterotype. And by the politics run by the american government it is no reason to prove the stereotype. But of course most people really consider americans like everyone else. And with some exceptions i think americans will find that they are treated as good guests as most other people around the world as long as they pay the humble respect to the locals.

 

To an extent, your logic is correct, however there are some issues that I have with both your contextual argument, as well as your calculated risk argument.

 

In terms of context, your numbers are correct. Many more people die in car accidents every year than those who died on 9/11, however to say nothing has been done to prevent that is simply incorrect. From local governments, state governments, and even to the federal government, regulations have been passed and discussed regarding cell phone usage, blood alcohol levels, and more. For example, on nights known for serious drinking, sobriety checkpoints are set up along major roads to prevent accidents. There are regulations in place for other causes of deaths within the United States, just none as serious as the regulations against flying.

 

However, the restrictions on flight in this circumstance truly becomes a necessity. There are two key reasons. The first being the increased number of lives at stake, and the second being the source of the problem. Unlike your example of car related deaths, terrorist attacks on airplanes have one potential source. A car accident can be attributed to weather conditions, alcohol, awareness problems, general impairment, etc. A terrorist attack on the other hand can be attributed simply to the presence of a terrorist and a weapon. Naturally then, the proper restriction would be against weapons, resulting in the appropriate searches.

 

I agree that unnecessary restrictions should be curbed, and living life is indeed a calculated risk. However, I'm sure we can all agree that there is a line where risk and reward can meet. Just because death is unavoidable does not mean we shouldn't try to prevent it. As the risk of another attack dies down, then naturally the restrictions should follow a similar pattern. However, lowering regulations unnecessarily simply causes more opportunity for the increased loss of life. I do not support the continual restrictions of rights indefinitely, however I do believe that the current restrictions in terms of safety are required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole thing was rigged for sure. No building of that magnitude implodes from a fire after just an hour and a half. When you look at who stood to gain the most from this situation it was the Bush administration and the defense industry. Now in the name of fighting terror, the civil liberties of Americans have been violated, wars have been started on false premises and the list goes on and on and on.

 

As far as what the most effective way to fight terror is? This may sound a bit silly but how about making the terrorists not want to kill you. It sounds simplistic I know but in the end it is the ultimate way to win the war on terror. Once you can achieve that somehow, you can wear your shoes and drink your freakin water at airports again with no worries. However while the USA sends their troops to invade and "liberate" people that cheer on the death of your troops, that objective will never be achieved.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the whole thing was rigged for sure. No building of that magnitude implodes from a fire after just an hour and a half. When you look at who stood to gain the most from this situation it was the Bush administration and the defense industry. Now in the name of fighting terror, the civil liberties of Americans have been violated, wars have been started on false premises and the list goes on and on and on.

 

As far as what the most effective way to fight terror is? This may sound a bit silly but how about making the terrorists not want to kill you. It sounds simplistic I know but in the end it is the ultimate way to win the war on terror. Once you can achieve that somehow, you can wear your shoes and drink your freakin water at airports again with no worries. However while the USA sends their troops to invade and "liberate" people that cheer on the death of your troops, that objective will never be achieved.

 

:rolleyes:

 

As for the physics and architecture of the 9/11 conspiracies, you're also off. Firstly, it wasn't simply the fire that caused the implosion, it was the physical and structure damage that a commercial jet can cause whilst slamming into a building. Considering the physical weaknesses that that can cause, fire can indeed eventually then cause the collapse of a physically damaged structure. I remember reading a really strong article compounding the necessary architectural background and analysis providing concrete evidence for that very point that I'll have to dig up for you.

 

Simply because Bush "benefited" the most from 9/11 in no way means that he had any hand in creating it. If my boss died tomorrow, I'd benefit greatly from it, but it doesn't mean I had a hand in his death. At best, your statement provides a basic motive, but no more.

 

Onto your fighting terror thesis. Making the terrorists not want to kill you is far from simplistic, it's fairly impossible. What's the goal of terrorism? To remove faith in the establishment. By attacking it, you remove the government's facade of infallibility, creating inherent fear. And I ask you, how weaker could the establishment be if its forced to comply to the demands, and make decisions based upon the reactions of certain terrorist groups? At that point, the terrorists have won the battle, and it all becomes another vicious cycle.

 

Lastly, not everybody cheers on the death of our troops. In the words of macgirl, "Really, how do you know, oh yes your media says so..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the physics and architecture of the 9/11 conspiracies, you're also off. Firstly, it wasn't simply the fire that caused the implosion, it was the physical and structure damage that a commercial jet can cause whilst slamming into a building. Considering the physical weaknesses that that can cause, fire can indeed eventually then cause the collapse of a physically damaged structure. I remember reading a really strong article compounding the necessary architectural background and analysis providing concrete evidence for that very point that I'll have to dig up for you.

 

Think again... the building were phisicaly damaged only on one side and if your thinking is right then the towers would fall and break only on that side and fall down uncontrolled... yet they collapsed in a VERY controlled way almost not damaging any other buildings.

 

edit :As for the fire, check this out... the building of similar structure burned for days yet it was still standing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understood it (from reading several articles about this topic) was that the design of the building struts precluded the building itself from collapsing due to the damage of the plane, but that the fuel burned hot enough to buckle the struts. Which doesnt account for how the buildings collapsed. The world trade center towers had their support beams on the outside. All of the beams (or a large number on each side) would have had to buckle for the buildings to collapse straight down. This discounts the possibility of the planes themselves doing the fatal damage. The rest is left to the metalurgists and materials experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems others have already addressed the issues of the buildings collapsing so I'll just focus on your other points.

 

Simply because Bush "benefited" the most from 9/11 in no way means that he had any hand in creating it. If my boss died tomorrow, I'd benefit greatly from it, but it doesn't mean I had a hand in his death. At best, your statement provides a basic motive, but no more.

 

If your boss died tomorrow and you stood to make a million dollars that you couldn't have made unless he dies, then yes you would be a prime suspect. The current administration not only had a motive but also had the means to pull it off.

 

Onto your fighting terror thesis. Making the terrorists not want to kill you is far from simplistic, it's fairly impossible. What's the goal of terrorism? To remove faith in the establishment. By attacking it, you remove the government's facade of infallibility, creating inherent fear. And I ask you, how weaker could the establishment be if its forced to comply to the demands, and make decisions based upon the reactions of certain terrorist groups? At that point, the terrorists have won the battle, and it all becomes another vicious cycle.

 

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Their goal is not to make the US government look weak and defeated. That is just the means to their aims. Their goals are political. These terrorists can operate only because they can recruit new members by making the US their scapegoats. Much like how the Nazis told the German people that the Jews were the source of their problems, Muslim people are told that it is the USA that is to blame for all of their headaches. The Arab countries are run by oppressive regimes that the USA helps keep in power. For example how friendly was the US government to Saddam at one point? How friendly was the US government with the Bin Laden and the Taliban at one point? Now the US has not only invaded an Arab country but has done so based on lies resulting in giving credibility to terrorist propoganda and alienating it's allies in the process. The point is, the US is guilty of meddling in the middle east. The terrorists use this as ammunition to antagonize the US in their propoganda and it is working. I'm not saying that the US should give in to terrorist demands because that would mean defeat and it is not them you need to appease. I'm saying the US should stop antagonizing itself so the terrorist networks have no more willing recruits.

 

 

Lastly, not everybody cheers on the death of our troops. In the words of macgirl, "Really, how do you know, oh yes your media says so..."

 

Well i agree that not everybody cheers on the death of US troops but there is a significant percentage of Arabs worldwide that do. My observations were not solely based on the American media either. Other international media have shown many instances of Arabs hating the US involvement in their regional issues and rejoicing when presented news of US casualties. I have also seen it here in North America when many Arabs and Muslims acted indifferent at best when told of the 9/11 attacks. When the number of Arabs celebrating US casualties dwindles to next to nothing, that is when you will have won the war on terror.

 

Anyways, I don't claim to be an expert. I'm just sharing some thoughts on a possible alternative strategy because the current one is clearly not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We (the US) shouldnt be involved in middle eastern affairs at all. In fact, we should say "we're going to leave you alone, to do what you like. leave us alone in turn, or we'll nuke you to hell."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Onto your fighting terror thesis. Making the terrorists not want to kill you is far from simplistic, it's fairly impossible. What's the goal of terrorism? To remove faith in the establishment. By attacking it, you remove the government's facade of infallibility, creating inherent fear. And I ask you, how weaker could the establishment be if its forced to comply to the demands, and make decisions based upon the reactions of certain terrorist groups? At that point, the terrorists have won the battle, and it all becomes another vicious cycle.

 

It's this kind of talk that leads to more nukes, guns and tanks. Seriously, there's no way to prevent EVERYBODY from wanting to kill you but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. All this middle-eastern $hit we're doing is ridiculous. We seriously need to bury the hatchet and quit worrying about stupid oil...with the amount of resources we have at our disposal, we SHOULD be able to go to something else besides oil cheaply and effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×