People have taken advantage of terrible situations throughout history, that is nothing new. Secondly, 9/11 was not the primary reason, if at all, used to sell the public we needed to go into Iraq. The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to sell the public that Saddam was a threat due to his WMDs.
yes and in history people have manufactured terrible situations to take advantage of after ... also nothing new ...
As I stated previously, I do believe there are plenty of unknowns and we do deserve to find out more... but with that said, it's a far leap to take that and spin it into the notion that the government carried it out. It's calling a puddle an ocean.
Also, and as more of a side note, even if someone did believe the government pulled an inside job, do you honestly have that much confidence in our government to do it successfully and nothing spur from it thereafter (leaks, people speaking out afterwards)? Our government screws anything and everything up, but somehow they pull something like this off to a tee? I find that harder to believe than anything else.
seriously, look at your reasoning here objectively ... your entire premise is that it's a far leap that the gov't would do such a thing and that even if they did - they would screw it up ...
these are your perceptions - it is not a foundation to dismiss those that see differently ...
beyond the question of the unknowns is why there are so many things unknown?? ... why the lack of openess?
Like any investigation....if you want to get to the bottom of what happened you have to look at the forensics.. something NIST seems to avoid like the plague.
When NIST cares to address the above issues.... I'll start to think they are telling the truth instead of running from and purposely avoiding the above information.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I stated that I do agree there are plenty of unknowns and things that aren't 100% logical, and there's more we could/should find out, but I find it to be a stretch to simply state based off what we do know that it was something like an inside job or otherwise. That's my grip with the whole 9-11 truthers issue. Its not about merely finding out info, it's about the conspiracy theory of the government pulling off this attack, which to me is outlandish and unfounded.
seriously, look at your reasoning here objectively ... your entire premise is that it's a far leap that the gov't would do such a thing and that even if they did - they would screw it up ...
these are your perceptions - it is not a foundation to dismiss those that see differently ...
beyond the question of the unknowns is why there are so many things unknown?? ... why the lack of openess?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Of course Im not saying that, I am saying that was the primary reason given to the public. Bush didnt need 9/11 to trump up support for the war.
i believe a poll showed that over 50% of americans believed saddam was involved in 9/11 pre-war ... that was not by accident ... carefully programmed misinformation propaganda campaign ...
I stated that I do agree there are plenty of unknowns and things that aren't 100% logical, and there's more we could/should find out, but I find it to be a stretch to simply state based off what we do know that it was something like an inside job or otherwise. That's my grip with the whole 9-11 truthers issue. Its not about merely finding out info, it's about the conspiracy theory of the government pulling off this attack, which to me is outlandish and unfounded.
Exactly. It isnt about questioning the official story, that is certainly fine. It is about raising questions and then providing answers to those questions, with little to no evidence to back that answer. The loose change guys have had to change their story so many times they probably arent even sure what they believe from one day to the next. Alex Jones is basically a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh of the conspiracy world, just telling his audience what they want to hear. I think people discount the fact that there is a monetary market for these types of conspiracies and money to be made if you sell it right.
I stated that I do agree there are plenty of unknowns and things that aren't 100% logical, and there's more we could/should find out, but I find it to be a stretch to simply state based off what we do know that it was something like an inside job or otherwise. That's my grip with the whole 9-11 truthers issue. Its not about merely finding out info, it's about the conspiracy theory of the government pulling off this attack, which to me is outlandish and unfounded.
again - you are entitled to your beliefs and perceptions ... but as the point of my initial post on this thread is that - they are yours alone ... they don't make you right ... so, when people come in and make antagonizing comments - they aren't coming from a position of anymore certainty than the other person ...
i find believing 9/11 wasn't an inside job to be outlandish ... it's a difference of opinion ... but i'm not going to call you a nut job for believing otherwise ...
i believe a poll showed that over 50% of americans believed saddam was involved in 9/11 pre-war ... that was not by accident ... carefully programmed misinformation propaganda campaign ...
was that the same poll that showed that 87% of americans dont know where Iraq is
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
That's after the fact though. Does anyone believe that 9-11 was done inorder to push forth a war with Iraq? That's really what the other user was alluding too.
i believe a poll showed that over 50% of americans believed saddam was involved in 9/11 pre-war ... that was not by accident ... carefully programmed misinformation propaganda campaign ...
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
i believe a poll showed that over 50% of americans believed saddam was involved in 9/11 pre-war ... that was not by accident ... carefully programmed misinformation propaganda campaign ...
That is after the fact. We had a war with Iraq in the 90s without killing Americans to do so. Clinton bombed Iraq without killing Americans to do so. Clinton with to war in Kosovo without killing Americans to do so. The idea that Bush needed to pull off 9/11 to go to war with Iraq is simply not supported by any type of historical context.
That's after the fact though. Does anyone believe that 9-11 was done inorder to push forth a war with Iraq? That's really what the other user was alluding too.
i believe 9/11 was done to precipitate the invasion of iraq ... without 9/11 - there is no way you'd be in iraq now ... state of fear, patriot act, homeland security, etc ... it's been done many times in history before and it works almost every time ...
i believe 9/11 was done to precipitate the invasion of iraq ... without 9/11 - there is no way you'd be in iraq now ... state of fear, patriot act, homeland security, etc ... it's been done many times in history before and it works almost every time ...
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
i believe 9/11 was done to precipitate the invasion of iraq ... without 9/11 - there is no way you'd be in iraq now ... state of fear, patriot act, homeland security, etc ... it's been done many times in history before and it works almost every time ...
That isnt supported by any historical context. We were in Vietnam for almost a quarter of a century without having been attacked.
That is after the fact. We had a war with Iraq in the 90s without killing Americans to do so. Clinton bombed Iraq without killing Americans to do so. Clinton with to war in Kosovo without killing Americans to do so. The idea that Bush needed to pull off 9/11 to go to war with Iraq is simply not supported by any type of historical context.
are any of your examples including occupation? ... there is no way you would be invading and occupying iraq today without the events of 9/11 ...
are any of your examples including occupation? ... there is no way you would be invading and occupying iraq today without the events of 9/11 ...
Explain Vietnam then. Im sorry but this is my problem with some of these conspiracies. You have no evidence to back up this claim. You are simply making it up because you want it to be true, despite the fact that historical context shows you are not correct.
... there is no way you would be invading and occupying iraq today without the events of 9/11 ...
thats supposition and isnt based on any fact whatsoever.
its just your opinion
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
you were in vietnam on the guise that communism would destroy america if it was allowed to spread ... again - an agent of fear ...
and the purpose of iraq was not regime change ... it is war profiteering ... what was the last country the US invaded and occupied openly? ... to this day no one talks about panama ...
this was about a full on war that would result in huge engineering contracts and private military contracts and the building of huge military bases for future operations n the middle east ...
Anyone else notice the media just finished parading around a bigfoot story prior to releasing NIST's "final explanation" on WTC7?
Thermal expansion? It was a *perfectly* uniform collapse.... the building remained pristine on the outside...think about it.
Maybe it will be another 7 years before they come out with another lame lightbulb excuse that holds no water.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
you were in vietnam on the guise that communism would destroy america if it was allowed to spread ... again - an agent of fear ...
and the purpose of iraq was not regime change ... it is war profiteering ... what was the last country the US invaded and occupied openly? ... to this day no one talks about panama ...
this was about a full on war that would result in huge engineering contracts and private military contracts and the building of huge military bases for future operations n the middle east ...
my apologies to OP for derailing this thread
I certainly agree that Bush took advantage of 9/11, and I certainly agree it was about profiteering. That isnt the debate we are having, we agree on that.
The debate we are having is that Bush didnt need to kill 3000 American's to drum up public support for the war. We have used propoganda before, and Im sure would have no problems using it again. And again, Iraq was primarily sold to the public with regards to WMDs and Saddam being a madman, not 9/11.
I certainly agree that Bush took advantage of 9/11, and I certainly agree it was about profiteering. That isnt the debate we are having, we agree on that.
The debate we are having is that Bush didnt need to kill 3000 American's to drum up public support for the war. We have used propoganda before, and Im sure would have no problems using it again. And again, Iraq was primarily sold to the public with regards to WMDs and Saddam being a madmen, not 9/11.
so what if saddam had WMDs? ... i don't believe that was enough to take the country to war - but with 9/11, people saw the potential devastation ... plus, there is more to it as well ... there is the patriot act, there is the wiretapping, there is a bunch of other things that have been spurred by the events of 9/11
and with that ... i must say that i am off for the day ...
i believe we have an understanding - we just disagree ... which is fine ...
I agree with you but would further add that the climate after 9-11 was a way to allegedly "re-think" how we view foreign rogue nations like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. But with that stated, we didn't need 9-11 to invade Iraq and occupay Iraq. The simple fact of how easily swung the media and the nation became over the false ties between Iraq and Al Queda is reason enough to believe that the public will fall for anything if given the opportunity.
I certainly agree that Bush took advantage of 9/11, and I certainly agree it was about profiteering. That isnt the debate we are having, we agree on that.
The debate we are having is that Bush didnt need to kill 3000 American's to drum up public support for the war. We have used propoganda before, and Im sure would have no problems using it again. And again, Iraq was primarily sold to the public with regards to WMDs and Saddam being a madman, not 9/11.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
so what if saddam had WMDs? ... i don't believe that was enough to take the country to war - but with 9/11, people saw the potential devastation ... plus, there is more to it as well ... there is the patriot act, there is the wiretapping, there is a bunch of other things that have been spurred by the events of 9/11
and with that ... i must say that i am off for the day ...
i believe we have an understanding - we just disagree ... which is fine ...
Large parts of the Patriot Act were actually adopted from measures that were written under the Clinton administration following the Ok. City bombing. the wiretapping I agree with you on, there is no question this administration is corrupt. But I do believe that is more taking advantage of a situation, not causing the situation. I believe we would be in Iraq whether 9.11 happened or not. We wouldnt be in Afghanistan IMO, but that war is obviously the secondary war to Iraq.
I agree with you but would further add that the climate after 9-11 was a way to allegedly "re-think" how we view foreign rogue nations like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. But with that stated, we didn't need 9-11 to invade Iraq and occupay Iraq. The simple fact of how easily swung the media and the nation became over the false ties between Iraq and Al Queda is reason enough to believe that the public will fall for anything if given the opportunity.
I agree. The environment was there for them to take advantage of, there is no question about that. But taking advantage of, and causing, are not the same thing and there is little doubt in my mind that they could have sold the public other reasons to gain support for going into Iraq.
Maybe it will be another 7 years before they come out with another lame lightbulb excuse that holds no water.
They don't need to, people think this one makes perfect sense already.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
They don't need to, people think this one makes perfect sense already.
yup we're all just sheep being spoon fed. mmmmm tastes good. what about this report doesnt make sense to you? assuming you even bothered to look into it
yup we're all just sheep being spoon fed. mmmmm tastes good. what about this report doesnt make sense to you? assuming you even bothered to look into it
All they have said is "yup....it was fire...thermal expansion caused it".
Amazing how all the glass windows were impervious to all this "thermal expansion" going on yet the entire steel frame of the building wasn't.
Whatever they used to make the windows, they should have used on the entire building apparently.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
yes and in history people have manufactured terrible situations to take advantage of after ... also nothing new ...
are you saying saddam/iraq had WMDs??
seriously, look at your reasoning here objectively ... your entire premise is that it's a far leap that the gov't would do such a thing and that even if they did - they would screw it up ...
these are your perceptions - it is not a foundation to dismiss those that see differently ...
beyond the question of the unknowns is why there are so many things unknown?? ... why the lack of openess?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
When NIST cares to address the above issues.... I'll start to think they are telling the truth instead of running from and purposely avoiding the above information.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Of course Im not saying that, I am saying that was the primary reason given to the public. Bush didnt need 9/11 to trump up support for the war.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
i believe a poll showed that over 50% of americans believed saddam was involved in 9/11 pre-war ... that was not by accident ... carefully programmed misinformation propaganda campaign ...
Exactly. It isnt about questioning the official story, that is certainly fine. It is about raising questions and then providing answers to those questions, with little to no evidence to back that answer. The loose change guys have had to change their story so many times they probably arent even sure what they believe from one day to the next. Alex Jones is basically a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh of the conspiracy world, just telling his audience what they want to hear. I think people discount the fact that there is a monetary market for these types of conspiracies and money to be made if you sell it right.
again - you are entitled to your beliefs and perceptions ... but as the point of my initial post on this thread is that - they are yours alone ... they don't make you right ... so, when people come in and make antagonizing comments - they aren't coming from a position of anymore certainty than the other person ...
i find believing 9/11 wasn't an inside job to be outlandish ... it's a difference of opinion ... but i'm not going to call you a nut job for believing otherwise ...
was that the same poll that showed that 87% of americans dont know where Iraq is
i'm just saying ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
That is after the fact. We had a war with Iraq in the 90s without killing Americans to do so. Clinton bombed Iraq without killing Americans to do so. Clinton with to war in Kosovo without killing Americans to do so. The idea that Bush needed to pull off 9/11 to go to war with Iraq is simply not supported by any type of historical context.
i believe 9/11 was done to precipitate the invasion of iraq ... without 9/11 - there is no way you'd be in iraq now ... state of fear, patriot act, homeland security, etc ... it's been done many times in history before and it works almost every time ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
That isnt supported by any historical context. We were in Vietnam for almost a quarter of a century without having been attacked.
are any of your examples including occupation? ... there is no way you would be invading and occupying iraq today without the events of 9/11 ...
Explain Vietnam then. Im sorry but this is my problem with some of these conspiracies. You have no evidence to back up this claim. You are simply making it up because you want it to be true, despite the fact that historical context shows you are not correct.
thats supposition and isnt based on any fact whatsoever.
its just your opinion
you were in vietnam on the guise that communism would destroy america if it was allowed to spread ... again - an agent of fear ...
and the purpose of iraq was not regime change ... it is war profiteering ... what was the last country the US invaded and occupied openly? ... to this day no one talks about panama ...
this was about a full on war that would result in huge engineering contracts and private military contracts and the building of huge military bases for future operations n the middle east ...
my apologies to OP for derailing this thread
absolutely
Thermal expansion? It was a *perfectly* uniform collapse.... the building remained pristine on the outside...think about it.
Maybe it will be another 7 years before they come out with another lame lightbulb excuse that holds no water.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I certainly agree that Bush took advantage of 9/11, and I certainly agree it was about profiteering. That isnt the debate we are having, we agree on that.
The debate we are having is that Bush didnt need to kill 3000 American's to drum up public support for the war. We have used propoganda before, and Im sure would have no problems using it again. And again, Iraq was primarily sold to the public with regards to WMDs and Saddam being a madman, not 9/11.
so what if saddam had WMDs? ... i don't believe that was enough to take the country to war - but with 9/11, people saw the potential devastation ... plus, there is more to it as well ... there is the patriot act, there is the wiretapping, there is a bunch of other things that have been spurred by the events of 9/11
and with that ... i must say that i am off for the day ...
i believe we have an understanding - we just disagree ... which is fine ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Large parts of the Patriot Act were actually adopted from measures that were written under the Clinton administration following the Ok. City bombing. the wiretapping I agree with you on, there is no question this administration is corrupt. But I do believe that is more taking advantage of a situation, not causing the situation. I believe we would be in Iraq whether 9.11 happened or not. We wouldnt be in Afghanistan IMO, but that war is obviously the secondary war to Iraq.
I agree. The environment was there for them to take advantage of, there is no question about that. But taking advantage of, and causing, are not the same thing and there is little doubt in my mind that they could have sold the public other reasons to gain support for going into Iraq.
They don't need to, people think this one makes perfect sense already.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
yup we're all just sheep being spoon fed. mmmmm tastes good. what about this report doesnt make sense to you? assuming you even bothered to look into it
All they have said is "yup....it was fire...thermal expansion caused it".
Amazing how all the glass windows were impervious to all this "thermal expansion" going on yet the entire steel frame of the building wasn't.
Whatever they used to make the windows, they should have used on the entire building apparently.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")