9-11

[Motherof8]

Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the destruction of the twin towers. Does anyone have any questions about what happened?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What questions are there to ask?

[paradoxical]

There are many unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9-11.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, please tell me we don't have conspiracy theory nuts on this board.

[Shevek]

Oh, please tell me we don't have conspiracy theory nuts on this board.

They are everywhere.

[paradoxical]

Surely you've heard of some of the inconscientes in the offical story. Many question what really happened on that day. The vast majority of New Yorkers don't believe the offical story.

I knew someone would cry conspiracy theory but the fact is the goverment has done this kind of thing before. Consider the JFK assissanation. Do you really believe the Warren Commission? That Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK with a single bullet? It's the same thing with the 9/11 comission.

I guarantee you this will never die and I believe we will have some answers in our lifetime.


They are everywhere.

Like the hundereds (if not thousands) of engineers and architects who point out that no steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire? That jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel? That the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707? That there was no reason for WTC 7 to collapse, especially at free fall speed?

I guess they are all conspiracy theory nuts as well.

[Clopin]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

Yes, those people are conspiracy nuts.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. He was a nut. There have been computer simulations that prove he could have done it from his vantage point, plus he was an expert shot.

How do you know the "vast majority" don't believe the official report?

I've heard all these claims about jet fuel not being hot enough to melt steel, that the towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 (just because they were designed to do so doesn't automatically mean that they would), and all the other stuff. I've heard both sides claim, with evidence, their case, and I find the non-conspiracy theory side much more convincing.

The vast majority of conspiracy theories exist for one reason and one reason only--they're fun. People like to think there's more going on than there actually is, when in fact there's not. Let's assume the evidence for each side is equally convincing for the 9/11 attacks (and I don't even think it is). What's more likely: that known terrorists who hate America and have been trying to attack us for years (and already attacked the TWC towers once before) hijacked planes and rammed them into the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and let's not forget the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, the one where people talked to their loved ones on the phone about the Islamic terrorists who hijacked the plane) OR it was an elaborate plot of the government to convince people that we should go to war in the middle east for dubious reasons? I know my answer.

[paradoxical]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

Yes, those people are conspiracy nuts.

Here's a much better video:

9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4)

There's a lot more to say about this but I need to get some sleep. I just hope this thread doesn't get locked.

[Shevek]

Like the hundereds (if not thousands) of engineers and architects who point out that no steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire? That jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel? That the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707? That there was no reason for WTC 7 to collapse, especially at free fall speed?

I guess they are all conspiracy theory nuts as well.

I was more so referring to the people of my generation who spout that "Bush knocked down the towers" because they read it on Twitter. I tend to defend my generation from rebuke and scorn at almost every turn, but every year on that day I want to round them up and push them down a giant flight of stairs.

Anyway, I'm not sure why the alleged thousands of experts are immune to conspiracy theories. Surely they have no interest in humouring a widespread public anxiety...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've watched videos before. I'm not watching more. I did check out the above video for a couple minutes though. I found the music and host laughable.

I just want someone to answer my question: which of the tow scenarios I explained is more likely?

[Pierre Menard]

Oh, please tell me we don't have conspiracy theory nuts on this board.


You think the 9/11 ones are bad, I still know folk who are vehement that we never went to the moon. :mad2:

[tonywalt]

I've been to the grassy knoll and found nothing.

[cacian]

May be the clue is in the dates haha 9/11.
Wasn't 9/11 predicted by Nostradamus?

[Delta40]

I thought it was 11/9...

[cacian]

I thought it was 11/9...

I was about to say that. The dates in reverse in American.

[Alexander III]

I do not believe in the conspiracy theories, but to be fair there are a large number of people who do and I can understand why they might believe them.

A General or Chief of Staff in the early 60's proposed a plan to sink a U.S civilian cruise ship without any passengers, and fake a death total of several thousands. Then the sinking of the ship would be attributed to the Cubans and used as a pretext for the bay of pigs invasion. Kennedy rejected the plan as soon as he had heard it. But still the very fact that the plan was proposed to the president...

Another reason why the conspiracy theorists are so many in number is how enormously beneficial in the long run 9/11 turned out to be for George Bush. It was the perfect pretext for colonial expansion into the middle-east, it created a sense of fear and panic which allowed him to get re-elected and it kept every distracted from a faltering economy which was about to collapse upon itself.

That said it is far more likely that George Bush merely took advantage of a bad situation, when life gives you lemons...

[BienvenuJDC]

Another reason why the conspiracy theorists are so many in number is how enormously beneficial in the long run 9/11 turned out to be for George Bush. It was the perfect pretext for colonial expansion into the middle-east, it created a sense of fear and panic which allowed him to get re-elected and it kept every distracted from a faltering economy which was about to collapse upon itself.

That said it is far more likely that George Bush merely took advantage of a bad situation, when life gives you lemons...

Talk about a load of BS...
You shouldn't be bring politics into this.

[tonywalt]

I just hope, but know differently, that we understand the complexity of some countries and cultures and not get involved....otherwise rinse and repeat - but we never learn....

I suppose that's why I am not in power ------ (yet:yawnb:)- I shall make a televised and internet streamed speech at Dawn, to all nations in my self decorated uniform and Ray Ban Shades. Most Litnetters will be spared - perhaps all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Talk about a load of BS...
You shouldn't be bring politics into this.

He's right, though. It was the perfect reason to go to war, something Bush wanted to do. That's not so much politics as it is historical fact.

[Emil Miller]

http://youtu.be/1-Hj-Y6o6ec

There, you couldn't have it plainer than that.

Or could you?

[BienvenuJDC]

He's right, though. It was the perfect reason to go to war, something Bush wanted to do. That's not so much politics as it is historical fact.

That is politics. Saying that we went to war against terrorism is historic. Saying that Bush wanted to go to war is politics.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Meh. Maybe so, but it's not BS either way.

[BienvenuJDC]

Your slanted opinion...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

As opposed to you're entirely unslanted one, surely.

[Alexander III]

Your slanted opinion...

Very well, I can concede that what I see as colonial expansionism into the middle-east, you see as bringing freedom and democracy to the middle-east.

I can also concede that what I see as using fear and panic to unhinge the rationality of a nation into re-electing him, you can see as the courage and strength of character displayed by the man convincing a nation to re vote for him because they trusted him with their safety.


But the economic collapse is fact, and so is that fact that most major economists were raising alarms since 2000 that such a collapse was imminent, also a fact that most of the world and america was too focused on terrorism and war to focus upon how dangerously close the Economy was to the edge of the cliff.

Are you saying that there is no economic depression?
Are you saying that during the first 8 years of the century the focus of your nation and the world was not on terrorism or the wars in the middle-east, but rather on the precarious condition which the economy was heading into?
Are you seriously saying that the great fear of the masses in the early 2000's was on the red-alerts economists world wide were giving rather than terrorism?

[BienvenuJDC]

But the economic collapse is fact, and so is that fact that most major economists were raising alarms since 2000 that such a collapse was imminent, also a fact that most of the world and america was too focused on terrorism and war to focus upon how dangerously close the Economy was to the edge of the cliff.

Are you saying that there is no economic depression?
Are you saying that during the first 8 years of the century the focus of your nation and the world was not on terrorism or the wars in the middle-east, but rather on the precarious condition which the economy was heading into?
Are you seriously saying that the great fear of the masses in the early 2000's was on the red-alerts economists world wide were giving rather than terrorism?

There is a worldwide economic depression that has been in the making for 20 years by many people and organizations. oh...or should we just blame the nearest person that we can? I fail to see the connection, nor do I think that 9/11 was used as a smoke screen.

[Emil Miller]

When, as president, George Bush senior sent in US forces to evict Saddam Hussein from his illegal occupation of Kuwait; he did so with the compliance of the UN and, once that goal had been achieved, stopped at the Iraq border and that was more or less it.
Fast forward 10 years to 2001 and his son George W Bush launches a massive bombardment of Baghdad and sends in US ground troops to occupy Iraq, a country that wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks and an action that led to the slaughter of many thousands of innocent people.
Whatever justification his father had for war in Kuwait, the attack on Iraq was unjustified and has merely strengthened anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

[KCurtis]

Here we go!! Yep Bush killed the people who died. during 9/11 ! He is tbe blame for all of it, ofcourse, and the U.S. is bad again!
How much aid money do we give to other countries? Hmm not enough I suppose. Oh, and ofcourse the U.S is responsible for all the economic collapse everywhere, not Europe, no never.
I am so sick to death of it- blame us for everything but for anyone to suggest that President Bush, regardless of anything else he has done, was responsible in some way for 9/11 is disgustingly offensive and dumb.


very well, i can concede that what i see as colonial expansionism into the middle-east, you see as bringing freedom and democracy to the middle-east.

I can also concede that what i see as using fear and panic to unhinge the rationality of a nation into re-electing him, you can see as the courage and strength of character displayed by the man convincing a nation to re vote for him because they trusted him with their safety.


But the economic collapse is fact, and so is that fact that most major economists were raising alarms since 2000 that such a collapse was imminent, also a fact that most of the world and america was too focused on terrorism and war to focus upon how dangerously close the economy was to the edge of the cliff.

Are you saying that there is no economic depression?
Are you saying that during the first 8 years of the century the focus of your nation and the world was not on terrorism or the wars in the middle-east, but rather on the precarious condition which the economy was heading into?
Are you seriously saying that the great fear of the masses in the early 2000's was on the red-alerts economists world wide were giving rather than terrorism?

America bad - Europe good blah blah blah blah blah blah


http://youtu.be/1-Hj-Y6o6ec

There, you couldn't have it plainer than that.

Or could you?

That's right yep- we knew about 9/11 we wanted to kill our own people!!! Ofcourse!!!
Bush especially because he is a - oh dare I say the word? A Republican!!!!!!!!!!
A purely evil man who rejoiced at the murders!!!
Yep, America bad - Europe good.
Middle East good - Israel bad

Is anyone sad about 9/11 and what happened to almost 3,000 of our people?

[Shevek]

That is politics. Saying that we went to war against terrorism is historic. Saying that Bush wanted to go to war is politics.

No, saying the U.S. went to war against terrorism is a belief completely rooted in present-day notions of "terrorism." Terror is a tactic that a great many individuals and groups use; it is not a military combatant that can be warred against. It is actually an ahistorical claim, because while terrorism has existed for thousands of years governments have not incorporated the rhetoric of a "war on terror" until fairly recently.

[Scheherazade]

~

This thread is now closed.

It is disappointing to see some of our more experienced members insisting on bringing politics into discussion despite being well-aware of the Forum rules.

~