^^ Tell that to the dipshit who tried that at UNC.

6/21/2011 10:19:58 AM

Tell him what? That murdering a few people with a car isn't as an effective of a blow to American Imperialism as taking out a major American Globalization symbol, undermine American transportation nationally and internationally and kill thousands of people all at the same time?

6/21/2011 10:47:39 AM

10/19/2011 11:59:45 AM

i love how the same people that make george bush out to be a blithering idiot hardly capable of spelling his own name also make him out to be the orchestrator of the biggest conspiracy in history. i'd say the biggest argument that 9/11 wasn't an inside job is the fact that so many people would have to keep it a secret.

10/19/2011 12:16:51 PM

There's a huge difference between saying that the government orchestrated 9/11 and that Osama possibly did not orchestrate it.

When 9/11 happened, I was too young to really understand the gravity of what was going on, and my knowledge of history inadequate to understand what kind of forces were at play. When I took an honest look at the Osama videos, 10 years later, it's just not convincing. The only video where Osama actually admits to planning 9/11 is one where it just...doesn't look like him.

Literally one day before 9/11 happened, the administration was drawing up plans to topple the Taliban. Within a few hours of the attacks, Rumsfeld "knew" that it was Al Qaeda, and those plans were set into motion.

Of course George W. couldn't have masterminded a plot like this. I think it was probably just a case where the administration already knew who they wanted to attack, facts be damned.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2011 12:28:54 PM

You know what, there is one really other annoying thing that would piss me off if our government was behind this. It's low on the annoyance list, but as an engineer, we currently waste so much money designing buildings to withstand this type of stuff. It it were to ever come out that a building couldn't come down like is stated, our building codes are stupidly insanely conservative and wasteful.

10/19/2011 1:06:41 PM

hmm, interesting.

People claim 9/11 was an inside job with virtually no evidence of such.
Same people probably wouldn't claim Fast and Furious to be an inside job, despite the mounds of evidence suggesting such.

If you don't think F&F was a left wing conspiracy, then you'd have to say the government isn't smart enough to run a simple gun running operation. But then you'd claim they have the ability to pull off the largest terrorist attack.... very interesting

I'm just extrapolating on the views of some of the posters ITT and other viewports they've argued before.

Carry on

10/19/2011 1:25:54 PM

Quote :

"You know what, there is one really other annoying thing that would piss me off if our government was behind this. It's low on the annoyance list, but as an engineer, we currently waste so much money designing buildings to withstand this type of stuff. It it were to ever come out that a building couldn't come down like is stated, our building codes are stupidly insanely conservative and wasteful."

I'm not sure there is any building that is designed to withstand a direct hit from a missile or a fully loaded jet airliner unless it is underground. Certainly not commercial or residential buildings.

Quote :

"Of course George W. couldn't have masterminded a plot like this. I think it was probably just a case where the administration already knew who they wanted to attack, facts be damned."

So now that you're much more mature and learned, do you think that it was not cells including Mohamed Atta hijacking and crashing commercial airliners into those buildings? What part of the official story are you disputing? Did Rumsfield direct Atta and the others to attack?

Quote :

"People claim 9/11 was an inside job with virtually no evidence of such. Same people probably wouldn't claim Fast and Furious to be an inside job, despite the mounds of evidence suggesting such."

What in the fucking fuck are you talking about? People who don't blame the Obama administration for Fast and the Furious are not in the same area of the Venn diagram as people who think 9/11 was an inside job.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 1:33:28 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure there is any building that is designed to withstand a direct hit from a missile or a fully loaded jet airliner unless it is underground. Certainly not commercial or residential buildings. "

there is definetely impact load criteria within steel structured building for high profile buildings and skyscrapers that wasn't there before (progressive collpase stuff). I'm not sure if code went "whoops, we never thought a building would ever be a target" or if it was "we are now forced to do this".

10/19/2011 1:42:25 PM

I suppose but seeing as how we had never crashed fully loaded jetliners into skyscrapers before I wonder what the code was like. That's an awful lot of kinetic energy followed by a raging inferno.

To me it's like complaining that there's no code to deal with a meteor strike. Not sure what you're going to do to the structure of a building to withstand that.

10/19/2011 1:54:37 PM

Engineering is always a balance of live vs. cost. If 9/11 was self inflicted it would show that the cost has increased for no real threat of life.

10/19/2011 2:53:00 PM

bush sr. and w. cut osama off from a bunch of his opium (and profits) bros.

pissed osama off, plane > building

case closed.

10/19/2011 4:42:02 PM

Quote :

"I suppose but seeing as how we had never crashed fully loaded jetliners into skyscrapers before I wonder what the code was like. That's an awful lot of kinetic energy followed by a raging inferno."

I think they considered a 707 crashing into WTC when they designed it, but they only looked at one at low speeds crashing accidentally while trying to land in poor visibility.

They didn't count on some fucktards crashing one full of fuel at high speed.

10/19/2011 4:51:30 PM

Quote :

""You know what, there is one really other annoying thing that would piss me off if our government was behind this. It's low on the annoyance list, but as an engineer, we currently waste so much money designing buildings to withstand this type of stuff. It it were to ever come out that a building couldn't come down like is stated, our building codes are stupidly insanely conservative and wasteful.""

The buildings collapsed because all (well, most) of the structure was at the perimeter of the building. That's why the windows were all only like 3 feet wide, because the columns were soaring up and serving as a diaphragm for the building, so that the center of the building would only have the building core (elevators, electrical rooms, toilets, shit like that) with column-free spaces.



So, when a plane strikes the side of the building (and goes pretty much through it) the structural load is compromised. The fire-rating was probably only 2 hours to begin with, anyway. Conceptually, a plane striking a building like this would be like having a person stand on a soda can and then having someone flick the side of it (it would collapse). Like this feller (http://youtu.be/H_z9K4ZfFlM)


Anyway, I was in my US history class when this happened learning about the USS Maine blowing up and how that put us into the Spanish-American war, and I haven't really read any of this thread. Carry on.


[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2011 5:26:56 PM

Quote :

"So now that you're much more mature and learned, do you think that it was not cells including Mohamed Atta hijacking and crashing commercial airliners into those buildings? What part of the official story are you disputing? Did Rumsfield direct Atta and the others to attack?"

My stance at this point is that certain government officials and possibly businessmen knew of the attack in advance and used it to their advantage.

10/19/2011 5:32:40 PM

Evidence?

10/19/2011 5:44:10 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate


[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason : Also I should clarify that I'm not certain of this, I just suspect it, with good reason.]

10/19/2011 10:29:40 PM

A good watch about how Osama communicated with the media to win the propaganda war against the US: includes some info about how members of the media were detained at guantanamo (one for 6 years).

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2011/09/201195112531537893.html

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 3:22 AM. Reason : ]

10/20/2011 3:20:53 AM

I don't have a stance on this deal, but to think that the government has told us absolutely everything they know about it seems unlikely...Gulf of Tonkin...

10/20/2011 4:13:17 AM

An almost entirely different U.S. government was not forthcoming with information about an embarrassing incident therefore it's likely that they were involved with attacking our own citizens in an unprecedented act of terrorism? Otherwise, if all you are suggesting is that there are facts that were available to the intelligence community that are not currently available to the public, I'd say it's almost certain.

What I'm seeing is that people are after-the-fact interpreting the ineptitude of our government (ignoring or missing the information suggesting such an attack was coming) as a cover up.

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2011 8:59:35 AM

Is someone keeping a truther count here?

Where's salisburyboy?

Quote :

"Literally one day before 9/11 happened, the administration was drawing up plans to topple the Taliban. Within a few hours of the attacks, Rumsfeld "knew" that it was Al Qaeda, and those plans were set into motion. Of course George W. couldn't have masterminded a plot like this. I think it was probably just a case where the administration already knew who they wanted to attack, facts be damned."

How am I not surprised this guy's a truther of the "they let it happen" or "they actively supported this" variety?

Why couldn't it have been the Bilderbergers, then?

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM. Reason : x]

10/20/2011 9:06:32 AM

it was the secret society of freemasons partnered with the illuminati who orchestrated 9/11 duh

10/20/2011 9:19:07 AM

Quote :

"Of course George W. couldn't have masterminded a plot like this. I think it was probably just a case where the administration already knew who they wanted to attack, facts be damned."

So, if al Qaeda didn't do it, and the Bush administration didn't do it, than you're suggesting that some yet-to-be-identified third party must have carried out the attack, and that the Bush administration either A) lucked the fuck out and the group never claimed responsibility or B) pulled off an equally diabolical and complicated cover-up. I guess this is what you get when you construct a theory based on your own ignorance.

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 9:42 AM. Reason : ]

10/20/2011 9:40:47 AM

Um, you're forgetting the shadow government that operates at the will of the NWO out of a bunker in West Virginia, Bohemian Grove, a vault 5 miles under Switzerland (why can't I, as a Swiss person, ever get in on all these awesome conspiracies?), and the Masonic Temple on Glenwood.

10/20/2011 9:56:23 AM

Quote :

"How am I not surprised this guy's a truther of the "they let it happen" or "they actively supported this" variety? Why couldn't it have been the Bilderbergers, then?"

How'd you get that out of the block you quoted? You're intentionally misrepresenting me, but that's nothing new. Fuck off, already.

Quote :

"So, if al Qaeda didn't do it, and the Bush administration didn't do it, than you're suggesting that some yet-to-be-identified third party must have carried out the attack, and that the Bush administration either A) lucked the fuck out and the group never claimed responsibility or B) pulled off an equally diabolical and complicated cover-up. I guess this is what you get when you construct a theory based on your own ignorance."

Al Qaeda members definitely had a hand in it, but that's a far cry from "Bin Laden orchestrated it, and the Taliban, so let's invade Afghanistan."

In the absence of strong evidence, I'm not going to make shit up, but I'm also not going to believe the government that has proven, time and time again, that it is willing to lie and murder people for economic reasons. It's simply a fact that our presence in the Middle East is not based off of any "goodwill," it's purely to secure natural resources and funnel money to the "right people." There are people in the West getting rich by keeping the Middle East in the stone age, and you idiots support it because you think they're on your team.

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2011 12:20:29 PM

Quote :

"How'd you get that out of the block you quoted? You're intentionally misrepresenting me, but that's nothing new. Fuck off, already."

Anyone as sure of themselves and absolutist as you deserves the ridicule.

10/20/2011 12:34:26 PM

Then ridicule what I've said, not the words that you've assigned to me. I didn't say or imply that they actively supported the attacks, and I also didn't say they let the attacks happen.

10/20/2011 12:49:43 PM

Quote :

"Al Qaeda members definitely had a hand in it, but that's a far cry from "Bin Laden orchestrated it, and the Taliban, so let's invade Afghanistan.""

You might as well have said, "I don't know what the official story is, but I know it ain't true."

10/20/2011 12:51:50 PM

Quote :

"Literally one day before 9/11 happened, the administration was drawing up plans to topple the Taliban. Within a few hours of the attacks, Rumsfeld "knew" that it was Al Qaeda, and those plans were set into motion."

What are you implying here?

Quote :

"Of course George W. couldn't have masterminded a plot like this."

Who did?

Quote :

"I think it was probably just a case where the administration already knew who they wanted to attack, facts be damned."

So was 9/11, in your opinion, a coincidence that happened on the road to the invasion, or was it needed as an impetus, in your opinion?

10/20/2011 1:07:45 PM

Quote :

"What are you implying here?"

That the administration was going to invade Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regardless of whether or not the attacks were successful or not. Do you find that hard to believe?

Quote :

"Who did?"

I don't know.

Quote :

"So was 9/11, in your opinion, a coincidence that happened on the road to the invasion, or was it needed as an impetus, in your opinion?"

I think it was closer to a coincidence, and when the nation was paralyzed by fear, the administration had a great opportunity to "sell" a policy that had already been set in place. It was also a great way to implement a ton of laws that were clear civil liberties violations (PATRIOT Act). The administration could have told us that it was fucking Saddam Hussein that orchestrated 9/11 and we probably would have gone along with it.

10/20/2011 1:40:46 PM

Pretty damned convenient that the group that the Administration wanted to attack just happened to attack us first. What luck! Or are you convinced that the Administration just wanted to attack anyone, anticipated an attack from Al Qaeda, then just knowingly just let it happen?

Quote :

"was also a great way to implement a ton of laws that were clear civil liberties violations (PATRIOT Act). The administration could have told us that it was fucking Saddam Hussein that orchestrated 9/11 and we probably would have gone along with it. "

You're arguing that it doesn't matter who attacked us, which may be true, but what in the hell does that have to do with what actually did happen? Just because the attack on us was used as a justification for military action and terrible laws doesn't mean that the attack was manufactured.

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 1:52 PM. Reason : clarification I hope]

10/20/2011 1:48:47 PM

Quote :

"Pretty damned convenient that the group that the Administration wanted to attack just happened to attack us first. What luck! Or are you convinced that the Administration just wanted to attack anyone, anticipated an attack from Al Qaeda, then just knowingly just let it happen?"

The administration absolutely knew that Al Qaeda was active and a threat before 9/11 happened.

The Taliban is a separate issue, but this article offers some clarification, "U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11" : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/ns/us_news-security/t/us-okd-plan-topple-taliban-day/#.TqBgaptKPlM

To be clear, I'm not saying that the attacks were manufactured. I'm sure you do remember, in the years following 9/11, that it came to light that the government did know that something like 9/11 was in the works. It's a huge step to say that they let the attacks happen, but obviously they failed to stop the attacks, which is arguably another example of the administration's incompetence.

10/20/2011 2:19:34 PM

The pre-9/11 plan involved ramped up diplomacy followed, if need be, by the arming of anti-Taliban groups inside Afghanistan. The purpose of the plan was not to advance economic interests. There was nothing keeping the US government from openly cutting business deals with the Taliban. Indeed, the early US policy toward the Taliban, to the extent there was one, was to do just that (see: Unocal). This policy changed, however, when the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden, who had begun issuing fatwas and launching attacks against US interests around the world. The impetus behind the pre-9/11 plan to potentially topple the Taliban through proxy fighters was exactly the same as the impetus behind the post-9/11 decision to go in and do it ourselves - to bring a mass murderer to justice and prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven for international jihad.

10/20/2011 3:10:00 PM

Quote :

"It was also a great way to implement a ton of laws that were clear civil liberties violations (PATRIOT Act)."

Not to justify all of the PATRIOT Act, but to believe that it's implementation was anything but an ill-suited response to terrorism seems pretty paranoid. And it's not something that's been needed by leaders in the past to help make the case for war. Nothing, not COINTELPRO or HUAC or whatever, was as wide-reaching as the PATRIOT Act. It was a bad reaction to the supposedly new and unpredictable nature of possible domestic terrorism. Please don't tell me anyone here thinks it was literally a tool for TOTAL FASCIST DOMINATION or whatever. This isn't a dystopian novel, just a failing of a governing ideology.

10/20/2011 3:25:30 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/31/clinton-on-sept-10-2001-could-have-killed-bin-laden-but-didnt/?intcmp=trending

Quote :

"Clinton on Sept. 10, 2001: I could have killed bin Laden but 'I didn't'"

[Edited on July 31, 2014 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2014 10:31:49 PM

just another thing that Bush and Clinton have in common

7/31/2014 10:35:28 PM

^^ I thought that was long since common knowledge. Not sure why it's a hot topic again just now.

He made the reasonable decision based on what he knew at the time. Obviously he would have smoked that motherfucker along with all his wives and children if he could have known the future.

We actually had a Navy missile cruiser on station for quite a while in the 90s just waiting to launch some TLAMs at OBL. We never really got a good chance (shaky intel, too much collateral damage, etc. always something.)

7/31/2014 11:31:50 PM

there was a new recording of him talking about it the day before 9/11/01. (and his wife is going to run for president)

7/31/2014 11:53:19 PM

Regardless of 9/11, there was the original bombing that he was responsible for...should've been taken out for that alone.

8/1/2014 7:23:46 AM

This is really relevant and damning to Hilary's presidential run!!

8/1/2014 9:53:36 AM

Yea, I'm not seeing how this is in any way related to her run. Bill did a lot of good things while president, did some regrettable things, but isn't that the way it is with most presidents' stint in the Oval Office?

8/1/2014 9:57:54 AM

you don't think every bit of supposed dirt on Bill won't be played up by fox news during Hillary's run?

8/1/2014 2:04:21 PM

Quote :

"and his wife is going to run for president"

Thx Captain Obvious

Quote :

"you don't think every bit of supposed dirt on Bill won't be played up by fox news during Hillary's run?"

Oh yeah it's gonna be a shitshow.

8/1/2014 2:11:50 PM

it's already started. i've already seen several articles just this week about bill and money on fox news

8/1/2014 2:14:35 PM

8/4/2014 7:27:44 AM

Quote :

"you don't think every bit of supposed dirt on Bill won't be played up by fox news during Hillary's run? "

I certainly do. I just don't think most of it will be relevant to her run for pres. Maybe the only things they can bring up relevant to her would be the real estate thing she was involved with, and her reaction during the whole Lewinski affair. Fox News will try to make that into something big because she most certainly did not stand for women's rights then. She did everything she could to tear down Lewinski, who was a googly eyed 20something White House intern.

8/4/2014 10:19:47 PM

what did anything about that affair have to do with women's rights?

[Edited on August 4, 2014 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2014 11:03:32 PM

because sucking a man's dick under his desk is clearly a woman's right!

8/4/2014 11:20:45 PM

OMG MAYBE WE SHOULD ALSO INVESTIGATE VINCE FOSTER'S DEATH AGAIN, BECAUSE CLINTON KILLED HIM!

8/5/2014 8:31:22 AM