tomchristie22
Is it true that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
john bodega
RE: 9/11... I'll bite.
No. But, there really ought to have been a proper inquiry. It wouldn't yield the answers that a lot of conspiracy nuts would expect or want it to, and likely they would just ignore any inquest that didn't mesh with their very firm (and flawed) opinions on the matter. These are people for whom science is an irrelevancy.
I'd put money on a more far-reaching investigation resulting in some heads rolling for various reasons, and it's not at all surprising that people with various positions to uphold would be reluctant for that to happen.
But no. There has never been a compelling argument for direct government involvement in 9/11. Some of the shoehorning that conspiracy theorists have done would actually be hilarious if it wasn't serious. It reminds me very strongly of the "Paul is Dead" folklore.
No. But, there really ought to have been a proper inquiry. It wouldn't yield the answers that a lot of conspiracy nuts would expect or want it to, and likely they would just ignore any inquest that didn't mesh with their very firm (and flawed) opinions on the matter. These are people for whom science is an irrelevancy.
I'd put money on a more far-reaching investigation resulting in some heads rolling for various reasons, and it's not at all surprising that people with various positions to uphold would be reluctant for that to happen.
But no. There has never been a compelling argument for direct government involvement in 9/11. Some of the shoehorning that conspiracy theorists have done would actually be hilarious if it wasn't serious. It reminds me very strongly of the "Paul is Dead" folklore.
thomasquinn 32989
@Zebonka:
If there had been a proper inquiry, it would have shown that the Bush-administration ignored warnings by anti-terrorism officials of the Clinton-administration that "something big" was being planned by terrorists for the U.S. homeland, and that they were extremely lax in guarding national security (ironic, considering they are also the authors of the most anti-democratic law ever passed in the U.S. when there wasn't actually a war taking place on its soil (Patriot Act)).
What I find the most interesting about 9/11 is that Bin Laden was named by commentators within two hours after the first plane struck, that the Clinton-adminstration had been keeping a close watch on him since at least 1996, but that the Bush-guys supposedly had no reason to suspect he was planning anything at all.
The Bush-administration shares in the guilt for the 9/11 attacks. If they had been a private party, they'd have been guilty of criminal negligence.
If there had been a proper inquiry, it would have shown that the Bush-administration ignored warnings by anti-terrorism officials of the Clinton-administration that "something big" was being planned by terrorists for the U.S. homeland, and that they were extremely lax in guarding national security (ironic, considering they are also the authors of the most anti-democratic law ever passed in the U.S. when there wasn't actually a war taking place on its soil (Patriot Act)).
What I find the most interesting about 9/11 is that Bin Laden was named by commentators within two hours after the first plane struck, that the Clinton-adminstration had been keeping a close watch on him since at least 1996, but that the Bush-guys supposedly had no reason to suspect he was planning anything at all.
The Bush-administration shares in the guilt for the 9/11 attacks. If they had been a private party, they'd have been guilty of criminal negligence.
tomchristie22
I was joking, interesting insight anyway though
john bodega
"What I find the most interesting about 9/11 is that Bin Laden was named by commentators within two hours after the first plane struck"
I've never found this to be a particularly compelling aspect of the whole thing. Commentators might've said it in the first few hours - but my Mum (with whom I was watching it happen on the TV) said 'bin Laden' in the first few *minutes*. I was pretty ignorant of the whole thing back then, but in hindsight it's bleedingly obvious what was going to happen.
But I don't think it's just hindsight that makes it all seem obvious - in a legal sense, I think there's definitely negligence to go around. Unfortunately, a lot of people have made a baseless leap in logic from 'negligence' to 'outright involvement'. Sad, but to be expected unfortunately. If people doubt the Moon Landings (established scientific fact) then they're going to have (and have had!) an enormous field day with something like 9/11.
I've never found this to be a particularly compelling aspect of the whole thing. Commentators might've said it in the first few hours - but my Mum (with whom I was watching it happen on the TV) said 'bin Laden' in the first few *minutes*. I was pretty ignorant of the whole thing back then, but in hindsight it's bleedingly obvious what was going to happen.
But I don't think it's just hindsight that makes it all seem obvious - in a legal sense, I think there's definitely negligence to go around. Unfortunately, a lot of people have made a baseless leap in logic from 'negligence' to 'outright involvement'. Sad, but to be expected unfortunately. If people doubt the Moon Landings (established scientific fact) then they're going to have (and have had!) an enormous field day with something like 9/11.
Queenfred
I watched a recent doco online about the "controlled demolition" theory (pertaining to 9/11). Not too sure I buy it all but the collapse of Building 7 is still interesting. Supposedly no modern building (up to that point and since) has collapsed as a result of fire (the theory being that fires don't spread easily in modern buildings due to fire-retarant materials in the furnishings etc). Building 7 was only hit by debis from the WTC. Anyways, won't go into too much detail- don't want to get into too much trouble for posting in the wrong forum, just found it vaguely interesting is all.
madmetaltom
Queenzone not warzone! lol
brians wig
Hang on.
The ONLY test they have for HIV is to look for high levels on antibodies in the blood.
The total stupidity of it all is that people have high levels of antibodies when they are ill and women have them when they are pregnant.
They haven't even found the HIV virus yet: all 'pictures' that are publicised are just that: pictures/drawings/artists interpretations - call them what you will.
So. If they can't find it, how the hell they can test for it or even cure it????
The ONLY test they have for HIV is to look for high levels on antibodies in the blood.
The total stupidity of it all is that people have high levels of antibodies when they are ill and women have them when they are pregnant.
They haven't even found the HIV virus yet: all 'pictures' that are publicised are just that: pictures/drawings/artists interpretations - call them what you will.
So. If they can't find it, how the hell they can test for it or even cure it????
Crazy LittleThing
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
- mankind never landed on the moon, the landing was shot at a Hollywood soundstage
-
Could you please start trolling with one of these topics ? Thanks[/QUOTE]
I think you mean a Culver City sound stage. :)
- mankind never landed on the moon, the landing was shot at a Hollywood soundstage
-
Could you please start trolling with one of these topics ? Thanks[/QUOTE]
I think you mean a Culver City sound stage. :)
john bodega
"Not too sure I buy it all but the collapse of Building 7 is still interesting"
To put it very briefly - the only people who think that it was a controlled demolition are ones who are caught up in superficialities and are very willing to write off reality as a barrier to good DVD sales. It is so easy to just say 'the building wasn't that damaged, the fire wasn't that bad!' and completely ignore the fact that yes, it was.
To put it very briefly - the only people who think that it was a controlled demolition are ones who are caught up in superficialities and are very willing to write off reality as a barrier to good DVD sales. It is so easy to just say 'the building wasn't that damaged, the fire wasn't that bad!' and completely ignore the fact that yes, it was.