9/11 - I'm not convinced...

[barbad0s]

I don't know what to believe. I'd much rather it was a terrorist attack. The idea that a government sees its people as that dispensable is unspeakably inhumane. I realize this is no different from the multitude of wars and conflicts that have been fought and continue to be staged globally in the name of peace, prosperity, power, and what have you not, but it seems to highlight the greed and corruption within our global and national systems that much more.

The idea that people could be (are) that corrupt, baseless, and greedy is sickening.

Why? It doesn't mean the people who made these decisions are necessarily super greedy and corrupt. Maybe in some mislead way they thought they were doing something good for the nation. It doesn't take too much misguided thought to push someone to doing something disastrous. These people have wives and children too.

Btw, the part I bolded is a sentiment held by most people, something the govenment would certainly be able to use to it's advantage.

 

[Lerxst]

As a group, legitimate journalists may be the most aggressive, obnoxious, hard-working, ambitious people in the world. A journalist who could prove "that the Bush administration planned for and allowed the lives involved in 9/11 to be sacrificed as a way to manipulate the rest of the nation into a war mindstate" would become famous, rich, and set for life. It would be a greater coup than the Watergate investigation of Woodward and Bernstein. In this day and age, no conspiracy can ever long survive the scrutiny to which history-changing events such as 9-11 are subjected. This is where conspiracies are doomed to failure, as tempting and exciting as "alternative views of events" may be. Critical thinking, which includes evaluating information and data sources, is becoming a lost art (tea-baggers, birthers, etc. have particularly lost it). Fiction is fiction and facts are facts, and it's important to know the difference.

If there's one thing history has proven to us it's to not take our government's stories at face value.

Pearl harbor - We had Intel about Japan's intent while they were shaking our hands to honor peace between our countries. We allowed the attack to happen and mobilized the country for war, pulling us out of the Great Depression. Happy coincidence, or not?

Lusitania - Ship sunk by Germany off Britain's coast prior to US involvement in WWI. Germany claimed arms and supplies were being smuggled in to Britain through their blockade, Britain denied claims and urged the US to intervene since it was carried American passengers. Cargo manifests after the fact proved that... whoops, they really were smuggling arms and ammo into Britain!

As I mentioned in the original post, the media we have in this country today doesn't stand up to the media we had as little as 4 decades ago. The government feeds them the information and they simply spit it back out at us. This can be seen clear as day in the way the Bush Administration handled the Iraq war. Instead of allowing the media access to the war zone like they had in Vietnam, they set up comfy little rooms and had military officials read statements to them.

There are no journalists left actually trying to investigate and those that are aren't getting published or hired by the major media outlets. Laugh all you like, but the resemblance of our media to the state of Nazi propaganda of the 1930's is frighteningly similar!

A journalist who could prove "that the Bush administration planned for and allowed the lives involved in 9/11 to be sacrificed as a way to manipulate the rest of the nation into a war mindstate" would become famous, rich, and set for life.

And I disagree. A journalist who did that in today's' climate would be marked for death under the Patriot Act and locked up, if not executed outright. There are too many people with too much money and too much power and influence to allow a story like that to ever see the light of day.

Why? It doesn't mean the people who made these decisions are necessarily super greedy and corrupt. Maybe in some mislead way they thought they were doing something good for the nation.

I also agree. If you've never seen it, or heard of the story behind it, watch "Charlie Wilson's War" that came out a couple years ago. Basically, it seemed like a good idea at the time to arm a bunch of Muslim rebels in Afghanistan in order to fight off the Soviets.

 

[Soulful]

Why? It doesn't mean the people who made these decisions are necessarily super greedy and corrupt. Maybe in some mislead way they thought they were doing something good for the nation. It doesn't take too much misguided thought to push someone to doing something disastrous. These people have wives and children too.

Btw, the part I bolded is a sentiment held by most people, something the govenment would certainly be able to use to it's advantage.

That's a good point. I suppose it makes the entire consideration that much more disturbing.

And yes, I see how the government could use this sentiment to its advantage, if it was indeed more informed than it claims to have been (which wouldn't be surprising or unlikely).

 

[bickelz]

[video=youtube;z8W-t57xnZg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&NR=1[/video]

This guy said that they only spent $600,000 investigating the WTC collapse while spending $40,000,000 investigating Clinton. Hmm.

 

[GracieRuth]

When I was 18, americans were being held hostage in iran. I attended a peace march to state that I didn't want a violent resoluation, and I supported Carter on his restraint.

Now I'm 50, and I can see clearly that Carter's approach sent the wrong message. Carter taught islamic militants that the USA was a pussy, so even if we had more money and weapons, they could attack without fear. The war on terror (let's call a spade a spade, we are talking about the war islamic fascsts declared on us) really began back then in 1979. And we have been losing it ever since.

I don't care what else you say about Bush -- he had the common sense to respond to threat by trying to protect us. I didn't like Bush and I didn't vote for him in 2000. But on 9-11 he put down the notes for the speech that had been written for him and simply spoke from his heart -- and THAT Bush, the REAL Bush, not the charicature that had surrounded him, was a Bush that cared for all those who had died, and who wanted to protect those of us left alive. THAT Bush, I love.

Bickelz, I'm not goint to try to convince you. All the evidence is there and is not even remotely questionable. If you can look at the evidence and still wonder if Bin Laden planned 9-11 or that Al Qaeda carred it out, then there is no reasoning with you. Be well.

 

[Lerxst]

Why? It doesn't mean the people who made these decisions are necessarily super greedy and corrupt. Maybe in some mislead way they thought they were doing something good for the nation. It doesn't take too much misguided thought to push someone to doing something disastrous. These people have wives and children too.

Btw, the part I bolded is a sentiment held by most people, something the govenment would certainly be able to use to it's advantage.

When I was 18, americans were being held hostage in iran. I attended a peace march to state that I didn't want a violent resoluation, and I supported Carter on his restraint.

Now I'm 50, and I can see clearly that Carter's approach sent the wrong message. Carter taught islamic militants that the USA was a pussy, so even if we had more money and weapons, they could attack without fear. The war on terror (let's call a spade a spade, we are talking about the war islamic fascsts declared on us) really began back then in 1979. And we have been losing it ever sense.

I don't care what else you say about Bush -- he had the common sense to respond to threat by trying to protect us. I didn't like Bush and I didn't vote for him in 2000. But on 9-11 he put down the notes for the speech that had been written for him and simply spoke from his heart -- and THAT Bush, the REAL Bush, not the charicature that had surrounded him, was a Bush that cared for all those who had died, and who wanted to protect those of us left alive. THAT Bush, I love.

Bickelz, I'm not goint to try to convince you. All the evidence is there and is not even remotely questionable. If you can look at the evidence and still wonder if Bin Laden planned 9-11 or that Al Qaeda carred it out, then there is no reasoning with you. Be well.

The war on terror actually began around the time of the first millennium when the Pope mobilized what there was in the way of troops in Europe and declared a war to regain the Holy Lands from the Islamic kingdoms. From that point on, most of what we would now call the "West" has been in an on and off war with the Middle East. The cause of WWI was actually due to some of these same groups still rubbing salt in each others wounds and the Muslim anger only grew once the "West" declared that very same Holy Land that was being fought over during the Crusades the country of Israel.

We, America, send them weapons. We fund them. The rockets Israel fire at the local Islamic populations say "Made in America" on them. Saying I would be pissed off if one of those rockets leveled my home would be an understatement. In fact, I would go as far as saying I would gladly sacrifice my life to make those people pay a hefty price for what they did. I really see no difference between Muslim terrorists and people in any country on any side of the globe who would get pushed to their limits. All America has done for decades is fan those flames and then when it comes around to bite us, we act shocked.

Carter had the right approach, unfortunately, he was sandwiched between two presidents who didn't; Nixon/Ford and then Reagan... or have you forgotten about the whole Iran-Contra affair and Oliver North? Another example of us fanning those flames.

 

[whytiger]

Building 7 still makes no damn sense to me. I can close my eyes to all the conspiracy theories surrounding everything else and accept that it was simply the result of careful planning and incompetency on our government's part, but building 7 does not have any convincing explanation that I've researched thus far.

You have been "conclusively rebut[ted]":

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

 

[magister343]

 

[invisible]

the issue that strikes me most is the willingness of a population to go to war. to free tibet perhaps - but to seek revenge and protect the self? i question the usefulness of this. what consistently floors me is the ingrained belief people seem to cling to that acting out aggression and rage could represent an appropriate solution to complex international problems. in my life i have learned through interpersonal relations to be very cautious of these approaches as strong indicators of personal immaturity, an inability to recognise perspectives beyond the identity of the self, or to formulate viable conflict resolutions. proponents of these approaches seem to hold things such as image and cult of personality to be real and effective, genuine and true, the absolute issue that is at stake - failing to grasp the ultimate transience and volatility of such things. all of this frightens me.

 

[invisible]

forget about the fate of a nation. this value puts a price on life itself. if you're prepared to do that, by your own definition you've already lost.

 

[James]

Bin Laden planned 9-11, Al Quaeda carried it out, the twin towers burned and collapsed, a plane crashed into the Pentagon (I was there and I saw it), a plane that was prevented from crashing into the White House instead crashed in Shanksville PA because of the heroism of its passengers, and almost 3,000 people were murdered. These are facts. The blame for 9-11 is not on Bush, the US, or the millions of innocents directly affected by this nightmare. Rather, blame the monsters who planned and carried it out, many of whom are, thankfully, dead.

I'm a little surprised that you seem so certain of all of the above Norton. Certainly if you've seen something directly then you're in a good position to say what you witnessed. As for the rest, perhaps because in the UK we had such a dishonest prime minister in Tony Blair its hard for me NOT to question everything he ever told us.

I think things like this are best considered based on dispassionate evidence, and the anniversary of such a terrible event is probably not the best time to do it (that's not a criticism of anyone). I went to New York in 2003 and I've seen the damage caused though that was not the reason I went. My heart goes out to everyone who lost friends or family that day.

 

[InvisibleJim]

That's a very nice conspiracy theory you have there... ssssss

Evidence be damned, I don't believe a word of it. It's clearly a whitewash. We all know that it was the mushroom people wot dun it.

What are they planning next!? Slimy little ground devils.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Guys, stop ignoring the REAL THREAT to peace and liberty!

More importantly, the moan landings were a hoax.

Here is my irrefutable evidence, when I went to the moon I found cardboard cut outs instead of astronauts.

And cosmic rays meant I couldn't even go there so its even more impossible!

I think this is the illuminati trying to perpetrate their evil tyrannical system through propaganda to control the masses!

Rebel! Rebel!

 

[Billy]

Yeah and Obama has no American birth certificate and was raised in a muslim hadrass!

 

[Norton]

I'm a little surprised that you seem so certain of all of the above Norton. Certainly if you've seen something directly then you're in a good position to say what you witnessed. As for the rest, perhaps because in the UK we had such a dishonest prime minister in Tony Blair its hard for me NOT to question everything he ever told us...

It's important to be consistent in how one collects information and acts on it. Presumably, you've come to your opinion about Tony Blair by what you've read, be that his autobiography, opinion pieces by his opponents, the BBC, articles in the Times and the Guardian, etc. Regardless of how accurate the weather report is, most of us tend to carry an umbrella when the forecast is rain. Similarly, when we read political articles and formulate our opinions of the candidates, we vote accordingly. When we read about the discovery of a Nova 23 million light years away, and this is covered in multiple news sources and media, we don't feel the need to question the veracity of the science reporters. So, why do some people suspend their usual way of collecting, sifting, and evaluating information when it comes to something momentous like 9-11 (or the moon landings, JFD's assassination), etc.? It's true that eyewitness accounts of the same event can widely differ. But, when diverse, competing news interests seem to agree on the general facts and turn of events, why invent some conspiracy? Because one distrusts government, the powerful elite or a particular ethnic group? "Occam's Razor" argues that we adopt the simplest conclusion given the facts, and the facts are best identified by the general consensus of competing interests. It's fine, indeed, imperative, to change one's mind when new information or data are found. Like science, in the long term, journalism tends to be self-correcting.

 

[hush]

I'm typically more concerned with the countless innocent people the US has killed in retaliation, the innocent children left dismembered in the street, the deaths justified by fear. I hear so often about these grand memorials made to honor the few thousand that died in the towers, but what about the Afghani civilians that have died in the crossfire, more than a hundred thousand (much more, somewhere around 140,000 is an estimate I've seen, but the numbers reported are always far, far lower than they actually are)? And, of course, regarding civilian casualties: "Note: In UNAMA/AIHRC methodology, whenever it remains uncertain whether a victim is a civilian after they have assessed the facts available to them, UNAMA/AIHRC does not count that victim as a possible civilian casualty. The number of such victims is not provided." Of course it isn't.

Are we going to make a memorial for them? It's just like how you always hear about the 4,000-some US soldiers that have died in Iraq, but never about all those killed (far more Iraqis than US soldiers, as always), the millions injured and displaced, how conditions there are far worse than they ever were before the war (less electricity, running water, etc.).

We're such a benevolent nation. Some days I'm like wow, the US is so awesome I just can't stand it.

 

[whytiger]

It's important to be consistent in how one collects information and acts on it. Presumably, you've come to your opinion about Tony Blair by what you've read, be that his autobiography, opinion pieces by his opponents, the BBC, articles in the Times and the Guardian, etc. Regardless of how accurate the weather report is, most of us tend to carry an umbrella when the forecast is rain. Similarly, when we read political articles and formulate our opinions of the candidates, we vote accordingly. When we read about the discovery of a Nova 23 million light years away, and this is covered in multiple news sources and media, we don't feel the need to question the veracity of the science reporters. So, why do some people suspend their usual way of collecting, sifting, and evaluating information when it comes to something momentous like 9-11 (or the moon landings, JFD's assassination), etc.? It's true that eyewitness accounts of the same event can widely differ. But, when diverse, competing news interests seem to agree on the general facts and turn of events, why invent some conspiracy? Because one distrusts government, the powerful elite or a particular ethnic group? "Occam's Razor" argues that we adopt the simplest conclusion given the facts, and the facts are best identified by the general consensus of competing interests. It's fine, indeed, imperative, to change one's mind when new information or data are found. Like science, in the long term, journalism tends to be self-correcting.

The official facts for what happened on 9/11, the plan leading up to it, etc. are very logically consistent. There is considerable data, not only from news reports and releases, but freedom of information requests from intelligence agencies and the statements of former employees of the FBI and CIA, who knew that the hijackers were in the United States before 9/11. I think that is what Norton and I are going on. The fact that a politician lied to get a ahead is moot. A person is no more trustworthy before we know he lied than he is after. I trust no one's word unless I know the person personally, but a great many people, with different motivations and goals, agreeing upon the general facts, is far more trustworthy.

The thing about conspiracies, especially vast ones, is that they tend to break down quickly because the facts never add up. If 9/11 had been faked, we would have known about it years ago. The arguments of conspiracy theories are the ones that fall flat, not the official accounts.

 

[bickelz]

Bickelz, I'm not goint to try to convince you. All the evidence is there and is not even remotely questionable. If you can look at the evidence and still wonder if Bin Laden planned 9-11 or that Al Qaeda carred it out, then there is no reasoning with you. Be well.

All we have is video of him saying what they thought would happen on 9-11. What other evidence is there? I'm not saying that Al Qaeda did not carry out the attacks.

And thank you for telling me to "be well" like I'm insane or something. Being condescended too is something i just love.

 

[whytiger]

All we have is video of him saying what they thought would happen on 9-11. What other evidence is there? I'm not saying that Al Qaeda did not carry out the attacks.

And thank you for telling me to "be well" like I'm insane or something. Being condescended too is something i just love.

We have evidence from interrogations of Al Qaeda members as well as NSA interceptions of transmissions between Al Qaeda in Yemen (which was communicating with Bin Laden) and the hijackers here.

 

[Lerxst]

We have evidence from interrogations of Al Qaeda members as well as NSA interceptions of transmissions between Al Qaeda in Yemen (which was communicating with Bin Laden) and the hijackers here.

Neutral, 3rd party evidence is non-existent. The only thing we have, is hearsay from our government and for those of us who don't trust our government to tell us 100% of the truth, hearsay isn't enough. We need hard evidence and that's the one thing there's none of.

As for the likelihood of the public gaining access to an NSA report... the NSA doesn't even share its intel with other government agencies. If anything ever did "leak out" skeptical wouldn't even be the word to describe a sane reaction to it.

What if some of this alternative theory was true and Bin Laden was actually captured alive?! How many heads on Capital Hill would be rolling if they uncovered even a fraction of what these theories suggest? You ever wonder why we were able to get Saddam alive and up on trial yet Bin Laden was killed instantly?