Printable View
Well It has almost been a decade since the twin towers fell. We've all seen loose change and have heard all of the conspiracy theories, now I want to know what you think about it.
Was it a legitimate terror attack, or a false flag.
I will remain neutral.
Yeah, it was staged by the media, the WTC never existed and it's all fake. Fuck capitalist Amerika!
I wouldn't mind seeing another investigation opened up. Not saying it was staged, mind you. If there's one thing I hate it's the whole "9-11 TRUTH" stuff.
No matter what, foreign policy needs to change drastically.
So far as conclusions are concern, I haven't come to one that I believe with 100% faith. Though the official story has both motive for the accused and a (loosely) believable sequence of events, there are also pretty strong inconsistencies and a damning motive for being a false flag operation as well - more-so than many people are willing to admit.
In the end, I've filed it under just another case of "I'm not going to openly call it a lie, but there is definitely a lot that doesn't add up," and I'm pretty comfortable with that position, for now.
Also, I agree with BLUELINE, about the need for a full, formal and impartial investigation (which was never done, and is now too far gone to ever be done properly).
I dont think it was staged. But I do think that some people in the American government knew about it, and wanted it to happen for their own agenda.
All the evidence suggests it was basically what it looked like; I've yet to see any good evidence otherwise, and the alternative theories are inconsistent with the existing evidence and themselves. I think people go in for the them due to well understood psychological phenomena like confirmation bias and apophenia. I also think there's an element of what I think is one of the main motivators for theories like Freemasonry and the New World Order stuff: people are frightened of (perhaps subconsciously), or else in some way biased in principle against, the thought that the world is chaotic and that stuff happens for no particular 'reason'. It's in some way comforting to think that large events are understood by a group of people and have some underlying order and purpose, no matter how sinister, rather than being the random results of ubiquitous human ignorance and incompetence.
It was shocking and tragic, and what followed after was ridiculous and condemnable. I think foreign policy is healing, though. Recent events have made me optimistic. The UN essentially prevented a massacre and then helped oust a dictator in Libya. I was also struck by the fact that I've seen protesters with American flags, and in Egypt I even saw a placard that said 'yes we can too'. In any case the Bush doctrine has been thoroughly destroyed. Even if Iraq was about setting up a democracy, (which it wasn't, it was always supposed to be about domestic defence, and that has of course been exposed as bullshit), the Middle East has now clearly shown that revolutions can, and must, come from the people. It's really fascinating to speculate on what Iraq would be doing right now if we hadn't done what we did.
I don't think any of it was staged or that anyone in the American government really knew anything about it. But I do think that the Bush administration used the event to their advantage. I'm not exactly sure what their agenda was (oil, defense, nation building), but it seems quite clear to me that they had one and the attacks came in handy for them.
When people are angry and demanding revenge, it doesn't take much to get them in the mood for war.
I agree. You'll note now, that this is also the alleged reason why no one has any rights any more, and that the system can watch and control everything you do even more so than usual. It was definitely used to the system/machine's advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
One of Osama Bin Laden's reasons for attacking the United States (he wrote a physical list of grievances that many officials DID see) was our occupation of Saudi Arabia and actions in the Middle East over the past decades. Al Qaeda does not hate us because of our "freedoms". Al Qaeda hates us because we are "all up in their grill" to say the least.
Get out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Israel, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait... and leave Iran alone. There's a way to prevent terrorism, eh?
Why do so many of you Americans think we should 'get out of Libya'? There weren't even ground forces. Should we have stayed out of Rwanda, too?
I really dislike your poll options. Turning this into a debate between extremists is the reason we're in this trouble in the first place. What happened to middle ground? Why can't someone say "It's really unlikely our own govt did it, but some of the evidence is suspicious and questions still need to be answered?" I mean seriously, if you don't think there's unanswered questions about 9/11 you're dumber than Sarah Palin's aborted baby. That doesn't mean they're out to get us, it just means there's questions.
While I obviously don't know whether it was an inside job or not - even though there are large amounts of inconsistencies to the official story - I think it is important to note that saying "the U.S government did it" generalizes things too much.
The U.S government is in no way an organized, unified entity. There is extreme fragmentation and compartmentalization, with many organizations and power groups not communicating with each other. The F.BI doesn't tell the C.I.A everything it knows, for instance. Furthermore, the line between the public government and private corporations is blurred to non existent. You are left with a situation where individuals and groups simultaneously have positions in U.S policy making, as well as control over large corporations.
It is entirely possible that some of these people staged 9/11, or at least allowed to happen, in order to expand their interests into the middle east. This doesn't mean "the government did it," as if every person in the whitehouse was part of a mass conspiracy, more that a rogue group managed to wrestle enough control to push through their agenda.
Bin Laden actually originally denied involvement in the attacks: "Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. "
After the 60 day period in which the President actually has say over where troops are allowed to go, Congress is required to authorize military action. They did not. Therefore, we should not be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Glad to see you thinking for yourself rather than blindly following an arbitrary rule.
And I have a feeling Washington's lawyers know a little more about this than you anyway.
Congress could have easily passed a Libya Intervention Resolution in a day. In fact, they had 60 days to do so, but rather than inform Congress about these actions and request an intervention resolution, Obama avoided it and continued action. The Iraq War Resolution was passed with evidence AGAINST intervention... and Libya had plenty of reason to support the rebels. I'm OK with the idea of intervening, but I'm not OK with how Constitutional authority was overlooked. Yemen is the same. Congress would quickly pass a resolution (especially with the House in a Republican majority) but rather than do things the legal, correct way, the executive branch does it the illegal way.
I'm confused why people don't find it "bad" that the executive branch actually violates the highest law... (Bush did it, too.)
And now the thread is off topic. I apologize.
I feel that 9/11 was along the same lines as the USS Maine, the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor (listed in potentially ascending order of severity of offense). By that I mean, it's 'ess about weather or not it was staged, but more about how our government took advantage of the situation, and how damaging that action has been on so many levels.
DING!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Why don't 9/11 conspiracy theorists ever consider the possibility that US intelligence services might have acted incompetently with information preceding the attacks? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than being able to pull off an elaborate cover-up which ended up casting a shadow on the country for the following decade.
All I see is "the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. would never screw up, therefore they were in on it". That's wrong on so many levels...
The CIA and FBI were still in Cold War mode; they really were just plain old incompetent. Or at least, not omniscient. 'Human' is the word. The Pentagon wrote up endless contingency plans for attack by pretty much every country on the planet; they had zero response plans for large attacks by non-governmental entities.
Do you mean to say that America becoming involved in WWII was a damaging action..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
In Britain we have a weekly show called 'Question Time' where public figures and politicians sit around a panel and are asked questions by a live public audience. It was on tonight, and bizarrely enough, one of the questions was, 'would the Arab spring have occurred were it not for the invasion of Iraq?'. Some Israeli guy spouted some nonsense about how toppling Saddam demonstrated to Middle Easterns that dictators are not invincible, and hence was responsible for the uprising. Fortunately he just got a smattering of OTT applause. Then this Arab replies to the effect of 'the total opposite is true. If you look at Iraq now, it's a total mess. The Egyptian revolution had far deeper reasons, and the US military's invasion of a country had no reason to give them any hope of victory. This is purely the success of the Arabs, and that's the only way to do it'. He got a good round of applause for that.Quote:
DING!
So, some people are stupid enough to be able to warp this into the success of the Bush doctrine, but hardly anybody is buying it.
On a side note, how the f did Britain get dragged into Iraq :lol:?
That's a very murky period. We went to war on the basis of dossiers that turned out to be tenuous fabrications by members of Government.
One of the people at the Ministry of Defence, Dr David Kelly, leaked his concerns (in particular about the very publicised claim that Saddam could hit us with nukes within 45 minutes) anonymously to a member of the press; he was soon identified as the leak and summoned to a hearing where he was aggressively questioned. Not much later he was found dead in the woods.
Personally I can't comprehend how anybody ever voted for the Labour Party again, but they stayed for years. Most of the voters are given stupid amounts of money by the party of course, perhaps integrity isn't the issue; that's a different matter, anyway.
As to motivations, God knows. I don't think it had much to do with oil; I think a large part of it was simply falling for America's rhetoric. I think Blair made it his personal mission to cosy up to Bush; he probably believed the 'War on Terror' was his legacy.
Considering they threw the official story out, I'd say there are some pretty big inconsistencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
But you're right, ever since we took in all those damned nazi scientists the US has been influenced by a covert, unaccountable and unmanageable compartment of government, it doesn't mean the entire system is corrupt.
Wait what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
That was referring to 9/11. The comparison to other events was just about how they were all used as justification for war (obviously excluding pearl harbor), and were handled poorly (certainly including pearl harbor).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Because the stories they come up with are more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Since Operation Paperclip departments like NASA have been completely out of reach by any electable government official. JFK complained openly about how unaccountable and out of reach government had become, and that was then. Since then we haven't even had a president with the balls to be anything less than an employee to this dark branch of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei