If they hoaxed a massive terrorist attack, why didn't they hoax finding Bin Laden earlier and actually finding nuclear weapons in Iraq in the first place? That, and how were the Bush administration supposed to be incompetent at pretty much everything other than massive conspiracies? Even the basic logic of it fails.
I also want to say that I fully support the president's decision to not release the photos of Bin Laden. There's no need for it and I can definitely see how it could be used as a propaganda tool.
Wow, your imagination is running wild. Thousands of people involved in the conspiracy? More like a handful of people. I didn't say Al Quaeda didn't fly those planes into the buildings, but that somebody from the US gave a green light for the entire thing. And if you think that the president of any country is the most powerful person in the country and the one who gives all the orders, then I'd say you're pretty naive. But it's ok, I guess you're pretty comfortable in your own world where everything is black and white, your country is a hero and the evil terrorist destroy your buildings and kill your people for no reason. Btw, you tried to provoke me once with that bitching comment, this lady gaga stuff is the second strike. I'm gonna respond the next time to you bullshit.
All i need to see. How are you getting that? I never said they didn't attack "for no reason". I just said one version of events was way less retarded than the other. Namely, Bin Laden has supporters worldwide, some of those supporters had contact with him in Pakistan, and a few of them let him when his enemies got too close. How is that 'black and white hero 'murika vs psycho brown man' fantasy? Explain why is the Bin Laden stuff true and the Lady Gag stuff bullshit one the exact same site. Strike 3. Go.
What's your motivation for making the acquisitions that you're making? What evidence do you have to say someone gave Al Quaeda the green light? I would say you're the one who's imagination is running wild.
To be fair, you did say "America killed its own citizens," which is easy to misconstrue. @Dean: That's pretty much the way I see it.
For someone who's trying to argue "America oppresses fucking everyone and they in turn hate you with a fiery passion for it", I'm having a hard time understanding Muertos disbelief in some of those people banding together and flying planes into shit. Just because I'm happy the man is dead doesn't necessarily mean I can't comprehend what he did or why people would back him. I do, however, like that my position apparently became USA #1 DIRTY A-RAB SCUM WE'RE COMING FOR YOU WITH US OR AGAINST US FREEDOM FRIES though. That's pretty cool.
It's not unusual for a government to engage in false flag attacks to justify war, it has certainly happened before. Robert McNamara said publicly that the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident never happened. After 58,000 soldiers had died in the Vietnam war which was started for that same reason. There was a declassified CIA document released to the public a while back called "Operation Northwoods". They designed false flag attacks to use as rationale for attacking other countries, specifically Cuba. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
It's not unusual at all. But it's also not unusual for strong evidence (like official documents) to get out to the public. The U.S. government is leakier than a faucet. Whether it's Watergate or any of the C.I.A's abhorrent activities, the big wigs don't do a great job of keeping these things under wraps. So where's the smoking gun for this supposed 9/11 inside job? Where's the irrefutable evidence? Where's the Wikileaks cable implicating some high-ranking U.S. official? Something with substance? Anything?
Neither of those examples are the same as what you're eluding to possibly happening with 9/11. There's just no way a U.S. president told terrorists to attack his country. Read Dean's post above. Even the simple logic of it wouldn't add up. I realize that you're not saying 9/11 was definitely a conspiracy, but even flirting with that idea is just fucked up. I'm sorry.
For what it's worth, I won't say government officials would never kill citizens to get what it wanted, it just didn't happen that time. Taking advantage of dead civilians to do what it wanted to anyway, definitely. Outright killed them in order to do it, less likely. Especially the thousands of easier ways to go about the same objective.
I can't say I'm certain it was an inside job, but.. Alongside Russia, USA is the most powerful country in the world in every sense, and especially in the field of intelligence networks, spies etc. I just don't believe Al Quada could've pulled off something of that magnitude all on their own, without somebody from CIA or whatever finding about it..
World Trade Center 7. While it is very evident the Twin Towers were hit by planes. WTC 7 wasn't. It seems that building just fell down for no apparent reason despite its distance from the site of the first crash. It's a tad suspicious if you ask me.
World Trade Center 7. While it is very evident the Twin Towers were hit by planes. WTC 7 wasn't. It seems that building just fell down for no apparent reason despite its distance from the site of the first crash. It's a tad suspicious if you ask me .
Why is it so hard to believe? Terrorist flies to America, goes to airport and takes a gun (or knife, whatever they used) with him, gets on the plain, and takes over the cock pit. At that point it was just a matter of knowing how to navigate a plane. It all happened because of the shitty airport security that America had.
You think that's how they do it? Believe it or not, Al Qaeda is a real organization with structure and order and not just a bunch of Muslim lunatics and they had probably been planning the entire thing for months. And btw, you really think it was that easy to get a weapon on board and hijack a plane even before you implemented new security measures? lol
Before 9/11, small knives were allowed on planes, which is what 9/11 hijackers used. They didn't bring anything on the plane that they weren't allowed to. Because we don't read every single post and can always use everyone's help by reporting posts like this.
Maybe, but it fell at the speed of freefall, goes against the laws of physics. While debris might make a building fall, the damage pattern would be irregular. Like one part of the building might topple over but the structural integrity will still remain. The building just seemed to fall in on its own footprint straight to the ground, an occurrence which is consistent with controlled demolitions. The initial investigation allowed for all possibilities to be looked at and investigated, except controlled demolition, if the truth doesn't fear investigation, why rule it out at such a primitive stage in the investigation? Not to mention the 9/11 Commission ditched the investigation abruptly and have refused to respond to any inquiries. A recent poll showed 66% of the American public want the 9/11 case re-opened. While I believe Bin Laden was the perpetrator, it seems like he got some inside help.