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

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.

 

In REALITY, more people die every year from choking on PEANUTS, than do from these so called 'terrorist' attacks. So lets go get though on those peanuts, bomb the country that makes them, overthrow their leaders, and tell them how 'evil' peanuts are. Maybe the rest of the right wing neo-cons will listen, and believe that if you eat peanuts, that you are going to hell or something.

 

Its like, they say if you don't believe the way we do about issues, then you are going to hell. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
In REALITY, more people die every year from choking on PEANUTS, than do from these so called 'terrorist' attacks. So lets go get though on those peanuts, bomb the country that makes them, overthrow their leaders, and tell them how 'evil' peanuts are. Maybe the rest of the right wing neo-cons will listen, and believe that if you eat peanuts, that you are going to hell or something.

 

Its like, they say if you don't believe the way we do about issues, then you are going to hell. :hysterical:

 

Again, the difference between asphyxiation followed by a peanut allergy, and a terrorist attack are two different things. Therefore, they deserved two completely different responses. In the same way you don't rampage through the world looking for peanuts, you also don't simply take medication and sit down after you've had a terrorist attack. Seriously, I don't really see how hard of a concept this is to understand. Mocking me or the response that the United States made isn't really solving anything. It only shows a continued ignorance of the facts and the situation in which a decision was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will neither deny foul play nor proclaim it

 

I don't know, but I will say I've have no inclination towards one over the other. (which isn't saying much for the US government)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they had some idea that it would happen. I pray that they didn't want it to happen. I just think they didn't do anything to try to prevent a terrorist attack. But if the American governement is responsible for killing 3000 of its own people...I don't know what I would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they had some idea that it would happen. I pray that they didn't want it to happen. I just think they didn't do anything to try to prevent a terrorist attack. But if the American governement is responsible for killing 3000 of its own people...I don't know what I would do.

 

I know that might sound strange and no offend please... but killing 3000 of its own people for a "good" reason is nothing special for any government. Every mission of marines, that may went wrong somewhere in the world, every war... it is 99% about getting disposal over something or about making money for the own political interests. If you read the history of the CIA, this is business as usual. Sadly but true.

 

Most governments do the same... France and the US in Africa, China in Tibet, Russia and Tchetchenia... others did it some centuries ago, killing millions and millions of people like England and Spain did. Or take Hitler, how he even forced german kids to run into war for him, or Mao Tze Tung - killing even more people than Hitler for nothing.

 

And if you see this, how much are 3000 people. Of course there is no way to do some kind of math here. Every single person is a tragedy. But I think 3000 people die every day for bad governments, somewhere in Africa or where no one knows about. In New York it was an extra special tragedy, because we could watch it live on television.

 

I think it makes no difference between sending young people to Vietnam and let them die there, or if it happens with some other people in the office.

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope you understand what i mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making money is the most banal of motives. That people should have to die so stockholders can make profit is stupid.

 

Some theorists claim that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened, and chose not to warn the naval base. If that's so, at least his motivation would have been to get the US into a war that they would have had to fight eventually, and better when it was possible for them to win than not. But to do the same thing to make money... shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that might sound strange and no offend please... but killing 3000 of its own people for a "good" reason is nothing special for any government. Every mission of marines, that may went wrong somewhere in the world, every war... it is 99% about getting disposal over something or about making money for the own political interests. If you read the history of the CIA, this is business as usual. Sadly but true.

 

Most governments do the same... France and the US in Africa, China in Tibet, Russia and Tchetchenia... others did it some centuries ago, killing millions and millions of people like England and Spain did. Or take Hitler, how he even forced german kids to run into war for him, or Mao Tze Tung - killing even more people than Hitler for nothing.

 

And if you see this, how much are 3000 people. Of course there is no way to do some kind of math here. Every single person is a tragedy. But I think 3000 people die every day for bad governments, somewhere in Africa or where no one knows about. In New York it was an extra special tragedy, because we could watch it live on television.

 

I think it makes no difference between sending young people to Vietnam and let them die there, or if it happens with some other people in the office.

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope you understand what i mean.

 

 

I wasn't talking about genocide or war, I was talking about killing for just...public approval ratings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't talking about genocide or war, I was talking about killing for just...public approval ratings?

 

*If* it was an inside job, and I really don't doubt that too much it was, you have to see what they got for 3000 people:

 

- homeland security

- the complete war on terror with all new laws

- billions of money for halliburton and the rest of the team

- a good reason to win an election

- a good reason for weapons, war etc.

 

I think it is possible that s.o. just thought it would be worth it.

 

The whole story really smells fishy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mocking me or the response that the United States made isn't really solving anything.

 

Again, for the 5,000th time, you are confusing our free democracy with a dictator government.

And you are right in your statement, that most people don't know the difference.

 

Your statement should read: "Mocking me or the response that the US Government made isn't really solving anything. "

 

The United States voted against the war, time and time again, especially during the last congressional elections. So if you

think that the people of this country support the war, you are dead wrong. YOU are in fact a minority in the crowd this time.

 

"In the same way you don't rampage through the world looking for peanuts,"

 

That is so true! Its true for Bin Laden, they stopped looking for him a long time ago. Now they rampage through the world looking for oil wells. How ironic.

 

Oh yea, and when the {censored} hits the fan that is National ID, next year. Just remember I told you so.

 

I also predict there will be another false, and so called "Terrorist Attack" within the next few years if one of a few selected people are elected into office out of the 12 that are running.

 

Personally I will vote for Ron Paul R-Texas. He is a Constitutionist, and most of congress hates his guts.

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/

http://www.youtube.com/members?s=po&t=w&g=-1

 

- billions of money for haliburton and the rest of the team

 

And now they have moved overseas to avoid taxes! HA! I told the Neo-Cons this 5 years ago... but like most of them, none of them listened. They refused to believe that their big brother leader was evil.

 

Some theorists claim that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened, and chose not to warn the naval base. If that's so, at least his motivation would have been to get the US into a war that they would have had to fight eventually, and better when it was possible for them to win than not. But to do the same thing to make money... shameful.

 

Talking to forrest here a while back, he had some facts to back up the theory on FDR, and WWII. I personally don't know much of anything about it, but I believe it started by provoking Japan's industrial age somehow. ?!?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean the conflict with Japan in general, it was inevitable. Japan was trying to acquire the resources it needed to survive and prosper economically, and the primary obstacle to that was the United States navy and trade fleets. No navy, no trade fleets, no competition. The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to cripple the US Pacific Fleet to force a settlement. Japan knew even with the destruction of the pacific fleet, it would inevitably lose a naval war with the US.

 

Our Empire, for the purpose of self-defense and self-preservation, will complete preparations for war ... [and is] ... resolved to go to war with the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands if necessary. Our Empire will concurrently take all possible diplomatic measures vis-a-vis the United States and Great Britain, and thereby endeavor to obtain our objectives ... In the event that there is no prospect of our demands being met by the first ten days of October through the diplomatic negotiations mentioned above, we will immediately decide to commence hostilities against the United States, Britain and the Netherlands.

 

Hmmm... sound familiar? Self-defense? Self-Preservation? All diplomatic measures...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my personal belief that rogue elements within our government helped orchestrate & allow the black ops mission now known as 9/11 to happen.

 

1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?

 

2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?

 

3. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane?

 

4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?

 

5. Where was George H. W. Bush at the time of the attacks?

 

6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?

 

7. Where are the flight recorders?

 

8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?

 

9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?

 

10 Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html

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.

×