Your veiw on 9/11?

[Humanistheart]

Hey there. I just watched a documentary on TV about 9/11, which was basically about Officials and Conspiracy Theorists bickering about the events.

So I thought I'd come here and ask ya'll what is your veiw on 9/11, in the context of what you "believe" about the event?

Do you believe the official story, or do you believe a conspiracy theory?

I don't buy into conspiracy theories but it's common for the government to without information they deam a threat from the public, often for decades. I'm sure we all can think of several examples off the top of our heads. So I think it's safe to say we don't have the full story.

I never cared about 9/11 though. More people die each day from cancer or car accident than the amount of people who died in 9/11. If the US showed as much patriatism and concern for all it's citizens that are dieing, and not just the one's that die in a group, our country would be a better place. But no. Somehow dieing in a group makes one more important than the little girl that dies from being hit by a drunk driver, or the little boy who's family couldn't afford medical care and dies of exposure. People's priorities are so messed up.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

As much as I despise Bush, I don't believe he would have been complicit in such acts.

Cheney, on the other hand ...

The government being what it is, I imagine we're probably being kept in the dark about a few details, but I still think the official story is pretty much what happened.

Nor frankly do I. I am reminded by an off hand but reveling remark by Rove. When he first met and got to know Bush he thought (he says) "Here is a guy I can make President." And that is what Bush was the first term. A guy they MADE President and shrub knew it. His job was to be a public face and do as he was told. And he did. Up until he fired Rumsfeld.

I doubt Bush had even read the PNC document - or cared if he had. He wasn't really in control until after his re-election. He didn't know what Cheney and friends had planned and until 9/11 actually happened I doubt he cared.

 

[McBell]

No.

Laws are enacted for a variety of reasons.

What does the Patriot Act have to do with proving that the U.S. government did one of two things:
1) Perpetrated the acts in 9/11.
2) Knew about the attacks and purposely allowed them to happen.

Those were my questions from the get go.

Think it through.

Wow, how easily you lose track of what you say....

The fact of the matter is that if you had asked for "proof", I would not have responded at all.

The fact is that you did NOT ask for proof.
In fact, the word proof is not even in the post I replied to.
Yet you quickly jumped up to remark how the patriot act is not "proof".
You know, something you did NOT ask for....

So yes, you did indeed move the goal posts.

 

[gnomon]

Wow, how easily you lose track of what you say....

The fact of the matter is that if you had asked for "proof", I would not have responded at all.

The fact is that you did NOT ask for proof.
In fact, the word proof is not even in the post I replied to.
Yet you quickly jumped up to remark how the patriot act is not "proof".
You know, something you did NOT ask for....

So yes, you did indeed move the goal posts.

What a simple minded avoidance.

I ask what the U.S. has to gain and you respond with the Patriot Act.

Which is basically a nonresponsive answer. Here are some examples similar to yours.

What does the U.S. have to gain from racists? Hate crime laws.
What does the U.S. have to gain from child molestors? Registries for sex offenders.

Normally, if one gives an argument proof is a given requirement for that argument. It's a basic concept. So, demanding proof that the Patriot Act was in the works and that the U.S government pulled off the greatest terrorist action or knew about it and let it happen in order to pass a piece of legislation with less federal authority than RICO laws and domestic drug laws would be the next logical step.

So either answer the question or just shut up already.

Jesus. I can't help but say this but exactly how stupid are the people on this forum getting.

Watch this, I'll ask the question again.

What did the U.S. government have to gain from either:
1) Perpetrating the attacks on 9/11 or
2) Knowing about the attacks beforehand and letting them happen.

Oh yeah. For the goal posters, here is the original question:

What exactly does the U.S. government gain from a planned demolition and the destruction of lives involving the Twin Towers?

What exactly does the U.S. government gain from purposely ignoring information of a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers?

Add in the Pentagon as well and the target of Flight 93.

An inability to provide any adequate response to these questions shows nothing but conjecture. The common response is oil. A laughable notion. More specifically, to engage Iraq in a war for some sort of benefit in controlling the oil market. How has that worked out? Not at all.

However, gaining an understanding of the actual foreign policy relationship of the United States in the Middle East as well as other major players shows that such an endeavor is most unlikely. A common refrain I've heard is that the U.S. was buddy buddy with Saddam during the 1980's. That's false information. The U.S., the U.S.S.R. and Israel all played a complex role in the Middle East during the Iraq war against Iran. The conflict between Arab and Persian cultures was a well known and age old conflict for control of the region. Many nations played the two against each other to prevent either from gaining a dominant influence. That's why the U.S. supplied both sides with military aid of some form during the war. Even Israel supplied Iran during the war with arms in our involvement with the U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan.

Also, the United States militarily rolled over Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991. Many factions called for a complete ouster of Saddam during that time and despite naysaying we did possess a treaty calling for action against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. A nation dependent on oil with favorable treaties with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab oil producing nations could have expanded it's influence by supporting the Kurds and Sunni's by prolonging the engagement and removing Saddam from power for any so called oil interests more than a decade ago. The support was already there.

So again. What exactly is the motivation for the federal government to either conpsire the destruction and death of so many American citizens or to purposefully ignore threats to them?

Poor grammar in that last sentence.

So can any "truther", CT'er or just plain idiot like the last couple of responses actually give an answer. And yes, basic logic requires some kind of proof. Or else peanut butter is a good enough "answer".

 

[McBell]

What a simple minded avoidance.

If you say so.

I ask what the U.S. has to gain and you respond with the Patriot Act.

correct

Which is basically a nonresponsive answer. Here are some examples similar to yours.

What does the U.S. have to gain from racists? Hate crime laws.
What does the U.S. have to gain from child molestors? Registries for sex offenders.

If you say so

Normally, if one gives an argument proof is a given requirement for that argument. It's a basic concept. So, demanding proof that the Patriot Act was in the works and that the U.S government pulled off the greatest terrorist action or knew about it and let it happen in order to pass a piece of legislation with less federal authority than RICO laws and domestic drug laws would be the next logical step.

and when did I make ANY of the above claims?
Please be so kind to point them out.

So either answer the question or just shut up already.

which question is it you are wanting answered?
Please be specific.

Jesus. I can't help but say this but exactly how stupid are the people on this forum getting.

Watch this, I'll ask the question again.

What did the U.S. government have to gain from either:
1) Perpetrating the attacks on 9/11 or
2) Knowing about the attacks beforehand and letting them happen.

The patriot act comes to mind.

So can any "truther", CT'er or just plain idiot like the last couple of responses actually give an answer. And yes, basic logic requires some kind of proof. Or else peanut butter is a good enough "answer".

peanut butter

 

[T-Dawg]

What did the U.S. government have to gain from either:
1) Perpetrating the attacks on 9/11 or
2) Knowing about the attacks beforehand and letting them happen.

Well, the war is imbalancing the economy in favor of the wealthy. Forgive me if I already mentioned this, my memory is bad: The far-right talk show radio hosts have said it themselves: Now is a great time to be buying stuff... if you have money! If the population is composed of very poor and very rich, then the very rich will be able to afford more than if the population was composed of rich and very rich, because as the average income level drops, the prices of goods get lower, and the ones losing more money have to sell off property to survive. This would allow the very rich, the ones who manage to hold onto their money, to seize the majority of the land and resources for a relatively cheap price.

Also, if there's a war going on, it's easier for leaders to get away with stuff. People will pay more attention to the war, and the leader can claim that he's doing whatever it is he's doing to keep us safe.

The Patriot Act effectively allows the government to label any act of protest as "terrorism," and it allows the government to deny "terrorists" basic rights. If there is a new world order conspiracy, then the Patriot Act will prove VERY useful for their operations in the US.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

" What exactly is the motivation for the federal government to either conpsire the destruction and death of so many American citizens or to purposefully ignore threats to them? "

Have you actually READ the PNC document? In your mind does ideology offer any motivation? It is conceivable to you that people once in charge of government would use that power to advance their view of what is in the national interest? Has it occurred to you that some might take a rather long view, decades long - of American national interest and count the loss of a few thousand lives a necessary price for achieving long term national security and power goals?

Apparently the answer to all those questions is "no."

And you accuse others of having a shallow understanding?

 

[cardero]

Neo-Logic writes: Well who else are we supposed to believe? Oh right, a bunch of complete non-experts who come up with a tautological theory backed up by clip after clip of buildings demolitions with arrows and circles, voice overs, and apparently having completely skipped their teacher's lecture on 'causation versus correlation' in their statistics classes.

Neo-Logic, If I am not mistaken, the fireman assigned to the 9/11 emergency have gone on public (video) record many times explaining that the way that these buildings were destroyed was very suspect and unusual. Some of the firemen on duty also have had experience with the detonation of bombs and controlled building demolitions and these firemen still continue to maintain that the events that took place that day could have been thoroughly manipulated and manufactured. My question to you is should these statements from professional firemen (who were actually on site that day) be considered believable (investigated) or should these reports be dismissed?

 

[gnomon]

Next time someone remind me not not to ask a very simple question.

Even those who consider themselves intelligent members of this forum failed miserably. When asked for an intelligent response requiring proof that they redact to that of a young earth creationist is rather telling.

Guess I know which members are worth responding to.

Now, on to somebody to actually attempt an intellectual response:

Well, the war is imbalancing the economy in favor of the wealthy. Forgive me if I already mentioned this, my memory is bad: The far-right talk show radio hosts have said it themselves: Now is a great time to be buying stuff... if you have money! If the population is composed of very poor and very rich, then the very rich will be able to afford more than if the population was composed of rich and very rich, because as the average income level drops, the prices of goods get lower, and the ones losing more money have to sell off property to survive. This would allow the very rich, the ones who manage to hold onto their money, to seize the majority of the land and resources for a relatively cheap price.

Also, if there's a war going on, it's easier for leaders to get away with stuff. People will pay more attention to the war, and the leader can claim that he's doing whatever it is he's doing to keep us safe.

The Patriot Act effectively allows the government to label any act of protest as "terrorism," and it allows the government to deny "terrorists" basic rights. If there is a new world order conspiracy, then the Patriot Act will prove VERY useful for their operations in the US.

The economy at the time of the terrorist attacks is nothing near to what we are experiencing now. Looking at what the current administration is doing in response to the economy, notably creating a federal position to cut the salaries of corporate executives, I would not suspect this as an ultimate motive of the federal government.

That the primary failure of the current economy involved the derivative market in real estate also speaks against any connection to 9/11 in that the two simply do not follow. The derivative market failure and the soon impending consecutive failure in other derivatives benefits neither the wealthy, the U.S. government nor those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks.

I thank you for at least putting forth an argument.

The rest of you who cannot understand a simple question can sink in your stupidity.

peanut butter

Thank you.

The immensity of your intellect has been noted.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"The rest of you who cannot understand a simple question can sink in your stupidity."

Better that than to drown in blind arrogance and willful ignorance.

 

[gnomon]

"The rest of you who cannot understand a simple question can sink in your stupidity."

Better that than to drown in blind arrogance and willful ignorance.

That or actually give a response to a question other than a whining "the Patriot Act" with no supporting evidence at all.

I've studied the the increase in government control in RICO laws, drug laws and eminent domain laws. It still remains for someone to do a very simple thing.

Explain how "the Patriot Act" as a response answers the question as to how the United States government planned or allowed the terrorist acts on 9/11.

It's a simple question for Steve's sake.

edit: Here's a cheat sheet. Government officials are sitting around wondering how they can pass the Patriot Act. They think to themselves, let's recruit some Saudi Arabian members of Al-Qaeda to slam some hijacked planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and wherever Flight 93 was headed. That way we can pass a piece of legislation which might expand some mythical, conspiracy theorist based concept of the Bilderberger's and the Tri-Lateral Commision.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

That or actually give a response to a question other than a whining "the Patriot Act" with no supporting evidence at all.

I've studied the the increase in government control in RICO laws, drug laws and eminent domain laws. It still remains for someone to do a very simple thing.

Explain how "the Patriot Act" as a response answers the question as to how the United States government planned or allowed the terrorist acts on 9/11.

It's a simple question for Steve's sake.

And my response was and is that the Pat Act was but one small part - perhaps not even a previously planned part - of an attempt to achieve a much longer range and larger objective.

Perhaps you failed to read - you certainly failed to grasp - my argument.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"edit: Here's a cheat sheet. Government officials are sitting around wondering how they can pass the Patriot Act. They think to themselves, let's recruit some Saudi Arabian members of Al-Qaeda to slam some hijacked planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and wherever Flight 93 was headed. That way we can pass a piece of legislation which might expand some mythical, conspiracy theorist based concept of the Bilderberger's and the Tri-Lateral Commision."

Not my argument at all. The act may well have been an afterthought; merely the sizing of an opportunity. That the neo-cons planned to increase the surveillance powers and the enforcement powers of the Fed. Gov. I do not doubt. That they had the text of the Pat Act in mind I doubt very seriously.

 

[gnomon]

"So again. What exactly is the motivation for the federal government to either conpsire the destruction and death of so many American citizens or to purposefully ignore threats to them?"

It wasn't the government but a small faction in the GOP - the Neo-Cons who were actually quite open in their plans. See the PNC document.

Would they have deliberately set on their hands and allow 9-11 to happen? Personally, I think they would. As evidence I cite what they have publicly said and done since and as recently as last week Cheney mouthing off about Obama destroying Bush's national security legacy.

I take these folks at their word. They believe in American exceptionalism and that justifies American hegemony in the world. A Pax Americana is a good thing and losing a few thousands civilians in the struggle to achieve it is a small price to pay.

Does that prove they knowingly did nothing? No. I doubt such a position CAN be proven absent some confession and details from those directly involved.

It does resemble the old "Roosevelt knew about Pearl harbor" argument and we never could establish that either.

But as others have pointed out the official version leaves many serious questions not satisfactorily answered - and others not even addressed.

That's your argument?

Seriously.

That Roosevelt might have used Pearl Harbor, on the scantest evidence, in order to propel the U.S. into a war against Japan and Germany when it was quite clear the U.S. supported the Allies at that time against those nations is comparable to the U.S. possibly using the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act and what else?

Achieving a global economic dominance already in possession by the United States?

As I said in another thread.......for Steve's sake.

It's like the tragedy in Somalia, the U.S.'s apparent strategy to play Iran and Iraq against each other in the Middle East, the CIA activity in Afghanistan to no attainable result is completely lost on people. That despite every failure in U.S. foreign policy that an impeccable conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center to advance, at most, wiretap laws is an intelligent argument. Given that the U.S. laws regarding RICO (how many times must I mention it), domestic drug enforcement laws, international drug laws and State's ability to control private property supported by the Supreme Court, all prior to 9/11 and out there for anyone slightly interested, is not enough to establish a non-capitalistic federal control over the U.S. citizenry and foreign policies.

The U.S. has been recording communications for decades. The CIA has had access to email's, cell phone conversations, etc. for quite some time. Does anyone care to even attempt to tie in the Patriot Act with a conspiracy regarding 9/11?

Or attempt to show how international trade relations, notably oil and other energy sources, favored the U.S. as a result of 9/11?

Or defeating communism? Wait, communism is pretty much out. What other fantasy can be put forth?

 

[McBell]

Thank you.

The immensity of your intellect has been noted.

Your welcome.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Or attempt to show how international trade relations, notably oil and other energy sources, favored the U.S. as a result of 9/11?

Or defeating communism? Wait, communism is pretty much out. What other fantasy can be put forth?

US foreign relations were pretty abysmal pre-9/11. They still are. The result of 9/11 may have been that the US gained some pity and demonstrated they weren't the only "bad guys" (Which did happen, at least temporarily). But that seems like a pretty weak beer argument to kill 3,000 civilians. Your own civilians, no less.

Perhaps it was to stir international action in the Middle East? Perhaps meant to initiate countries to send their troops into Iraq for the US to secure influence in that area with international support so that they don't appear like the aggressors? Seems more plausible, but still not satisfactory.

Even the implementation of the Patriot Act isn't satisfactory because you run into the question of what the US has to gain from spying on its own citizens. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I honestly don't see any discernable, beneficial end for the Patriot Act. Greater power over the citizens? Sure. The ability to spy on them or detain them without charge? Sure. But why? And for what purpose? I don't see one. Perhaps someone else has an answer to that.

 

[gnomon]

US foreign relations were pretty abysmal pre-9/11. They still are. The result of 9/11 may have been that the US gained some pity and demonstrated they weren't the only "bad guys" (Which did happen, at least temporarily). But that seems like a pretty weak beer argument to kill 3,000 civilians. Your own civilians, no less.

Perhaps it was to stir international action in the Middle East? Perhaps meant to initiate countries to send their troops into Iraq for the US to secure influence in that area with international support so that they don't appear like the aggressors? Seems more plausible, but still not satisfactory.

Even the implementation of the Patriot Act isn't satisfactory because you run into the question of what the US has to gain from spying on its own citizens. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I honestly don't see any discernable, beneficial end for the Patriot Act. Greater power over the citizens? Sure. The ability to spy on them or detain them without charge? Sure. But why? And for what purpose? I don't see one. Perhaps someone else has an answer to that.

Thank you.

I'm still waiting for that elusive answer.

I've seen conspiracies regarding the drug war where in fact actual up front racist policies or irrational reactions were far more plausible.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“That Roosevelt might have used Pearl Harbor, on the scantest evidence, in order to propel the U.S. into a war against Japan and Germany when it was quite clear the U.S. supported the Allies at that time against those nations is comparable to the U.S. possibly using the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act and what else?”



Are you actually that dense are you just willfully ignoring the actual argument?

Read the PNC document. Note who signed it. Note who a decade later are major players in shaping and implementing US Foreign Policy. Are you suggesting that those same folk once in power lost all interest in achieving what they so proudly and vocally announced as laudable aims just 10 yrs before and continued to support and still support today?

The aim my undiscerning readers is to create a New American Century. The 21st. A time when American’s slightest wish is international law. When an American citizen may go anywhere in the world and know that he/she can do almost anything with little or no regard for local law and/or custom. When being an American MEANS something. That American military power is not simply greater that anyone else’s but so overwhelming that to even mutter opposition to American foreign policy is grounds for a full invasion by US Marines taking no prisoners and giving no quarter.

A time when America and its selected allies are the only nuclear powers and the rest of world knows it and knows neither we nor our allies have the slightest hesitation in using any and all such weapons in furtherance of American aims.

The creation of such a world needs an American public willing to support a vast military establishment with both $ and manpower. More. It needs a federal government with sufficient power to ID and silence any domestic opposition.

If a 9/11 type event is what is needed to start this process (and they said they thought it was) IF such an event is planned with the lost of but a few thousand lives and some paltry funds- why not just let it happen? Would not our G/G/C in 2080 enjoying the kind of empire described above – would they not looking back say the sacrifice was well worth it?

THAT is why it is at least possible that the Bush administration knew EXACTLY what was planned for 9/11 and knowingly and willing let it happen.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Omar...that's pretty much the case already....

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Omar...that's pretty much the case already....

Hardly.

Russia, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and most of all - China. None bow a knee to American power. Because there is not enough of it. When neither Russia nor China dare veto an American proposal in the UN Security Council - then you might have the kind of world the neo-cons dream of.

When Russia sells our allies oil at well below market price because the alternative is that we simply take it by force - now you have something.