9/11 - Al Qaeda or the U.S.?

[DDRtists]

For everyone who says "What are the US' reasons for this?", read this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/insurance-scam.htm

A large sum of insurance money was placed on the Twin Towers.

 

[SFilip]

> However the U.S. governments reasons for doing this are shorter.
-OIL
-proving that they're the world police by fighting terrorism
-wars and pillage can be very, very profitable for some people

> there are many better options that don't need 3000+ sacrificed American lives
You must understand that the people responsible for this (whoever they are) simply don't care how many Americans (or any other people) die in order for them to reach their goals.
It wasn't necessarily the government either - I'm pretty sure there are more powerful institutions most people aren't even aware of.

And one last thing:
Saying anything is "proven" when it comes to things like 9/11 or the moon landing is just plain nonsense.
I'm pretty sure people had proof that the earth is round at some point. They also likely had proof that it's impossible to surpass the speed of sound.

 

[Lime]

Okay, well, I don't have a whole lot to say, but I do want to clear up one thing that is bugging me and add something new.

The US government IS that stupid. Shown historically with such things as D-Day (Doom's Day) invasion, so named because the US thought the plan sure to fail.

D-Day does not mean Doom's Day. D-Day is a general military term used to describe a day when an operation is commencing. The D itself generally has no real meaning, except for Day. H-Hour is used to describe what time of day, and the H does not mean Hell or something equally silly.
The Normandy invasion was not officially known as D-Day, but was Operation Overlord. Also, the operation was not intended to fail, there had been months of misinformation campaign's to trick the Nazi's into believing the invasion would be at another location, making the Normandy resistance lighter.
While that has little to nothing to do with the debate, I just had to clear it up.

Now, I wanted to add in this:
Osama bin Laden has claimed responsibility for 9/11

"And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same, and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children."

Now, I'm sure someone will say the classic "They hate us for our freedom!"
I want to clear that up too, and in the same breath, support the idea that our government is, indirectly, responsible for 9/11.

Extremists like bin Laden do not hate the US because it is a free nation of infidels. They hate us because, to quote Ron Paul, "We are over there, and we have been over there, bombing them for 10 years."

This idea isn't just Paul's either. It is supported by two experts, one on each side of the issue. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit has supported this, and so has bin Laden. Osama himself says the reason they are fighting us is because we have been interfering with them for quite some time.

We sent troops and arms in in the 70's to stop the Soviets, who were trying to invade, we armed Iran in 1987, we attacked Iraq in the First Gulf War in 1991. We have been interfering with them for over 30 years.
We have occupied some area of the Middle East in some form or fashion for 3 decades, and it has left them a tad angry.

That is why they attacked us, and that is how the government is responsible. The government, using a foreign policy of interventionism (meddling) brought 9/11 upon itself. Had we used the military for its purpose as stated by the constitution "To insure DOMESTIC tranquility" and "To provide for the common DEFENSE" this would not have happened. Our military is not an instrument to force our goodwill upon other nations, regardless of how morally right our goodwill may be, our military's purpose is to defend the country.

Finally, some quotes from bin Laden explaining 9/11.

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished

Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security.

Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.

 

[New_U.S.]

The U.S. has never looks hard enough into the middle east to understand it. We armed Afghans in the Cold War to defeat the Soviets. However after the Soviet Union had fell, we did not find the need to rebuild the country. Maybe if we did, Afghanistan would be a much more U.S. friendly country. The Taliban and al Queda wouldn't have formed, because the conditions would not have been so bad.

The U.S. did not believe al Queda was enough of a threat, just as they didn't believe the insurgency in Iraq would be a threat.

The U.S.' governments arrogance over looks these threats. 9/11 was caused by al Queda but the U.S. might have had a chance to stop it.

 

[Miz]

The reason why I doubt that the Government of the United States of America would commit 9/11 is that what would be the purpose... What would sacrificing hundreds of Americans lives do anything to benefit america?

If this truly did happen by the US Government it is up to the ciztiens of America by the constitution to replace the government by voting or by revolting...

The US Government may have mistakes but is not stupid... Some people here think they can run the country better... but No matter what you do you can't make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time.

I really don't think causing a war and pretending a terrorist attack is a way to get oil and making the country richer. Why? because how would spending money on a War make a country have more money... It doesn't make sense.

War = Spending$
Spending$ + World/National Fear = Earning$?

The U.S.' governments arrogance over looks these threats. 9/11 was caused by al Queda but the U.S. might have had a chance to stop it.

Never underestimate the smallest threat, a basic lesson in the book to war...

 

[AinurBenAdar]

D-Day does not mean Doom's Day. D-Day is a general military term used to describe a day when an operation is commencing. The D itself generally has no real meaning, except for Day. H-Hour is used to describe what time of day, and the H does not mean Hell or something equally silly.
The Normandy invasion was not officially known as D-Day, but was Operation Overlord. Also, the operation was not intended to fail, there had been months of misinformation campaign's to trick the Nazi's into believing the invasion would be at another location, making the Normandy resistance lighter.
While that has little to nothing to do with the debate, I just had to clear it up

First and foremost, corrections mean little without correct background knowledge.

It doesn't bother me when people correct me, I can deal with that quite fine. What bothers me is when said people are, in a sense or another, wrong.

You are correct in saying D-Day is a general military term. However, after studying WWII in school and outside for months, rather than the couple of weeks generally assigned to that topic, I can say with all certainty that among all circles Overlord was not intended to fail, but, under the circumstance of almost the whole of France under Nazi occupation, was expected to fail, and therefore most circles nicknamed it the Doom's-Day operation, when reffered to as D-day. More as a nervous joke than anything else.

That does, however, skip the topic, as you said. The part I was implying that was topical was the part where, as I said, the US, England, and other countries who knew of the invasion, expected the operation to nearly fail, if not completely, and carried through anyhow. And, if you've ever seen the causualty numbers, you may think it had failed. In my opinion, it failed, at least in the sense of non-sensical loss of lives.

Which, therefore, carries on to my point in saying that the US, in one way or another, knew the attack was coming, or, at the very least saw the possibility, and laughed it away, thinking that the country is too great for a direct attack initiated on our own soil.

Once again, Overlord is a moot point. I just had to clarify myself to stop any other confusion, and reiterate my point that the US was, in one way or another, responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Also, an interesting fact that you can look into, and I'll find the passage if I can...the Koran predicts something along the lines of 9/11 and the War on Terror, or, at the very least, can be interpreted as such a prediction.
The Defense Department also knew of this passage as part of the intelligence they had recieved about a possible attack, and also laughed off the "religious hocus pocus" as non-sensical ramblings that had nothing to do with anything. Which, they could be, but after reading, I doubt highly.

 

[Varine]

Why would the US expect Overlord to fail? Even if they did expect it to fail, that shows nothing of stupidy, simply desperation for a foothold.
The Great Depression wasn't really because of stupidy. Sure, I'll accept that Hoover did incrediably poorly at recognizing the downfall of our economy, but he had expected it to jump back up just like it's done many times before. And it's not like we caused Europe's depression, if anything they caused ours.

And I seriously doubt that we're in the War on Terrorism for oil. At least, from my experience in the war, I've not come to accept that conclusion. And as the Al'Qaeda accepted responsibility for it, good enough for me until someone gives me definitive evidence of the tower's being forced to collapse.
The apperant explosions coming out as the towers collapse aren't explosions. Even if there were squids, what is that? Every twenty stories? That's going to do very little, and after the tower started to fall those wouldn't have been needed anyway.
There would have been plenty of other reasons to invade Afghanistan.

 

[DDRtists]

I really don't think causing a war and pretending a terrorist attack is a way to get oil and making the country richer. Why? because how would spending money on a War make a country have more money... It doesn't make sense.

War = Spending$
Spending$ + World/National Fear = Earning$?

The people who started this either own the companies that make the stuff for the War. Food, cards, houses, tents, tanks, ANYTHING.

That means they buy tons of supplies for the war. Buying Supplies = More taxes. So in reality, they make more money than they loose.

You seem to think the government is all good. I can tell you, I research a lot in the politics field, and I hate it, but there are so many corrupt things going on. Right now, it's republican ran, meaning all they want is for the money to be made. Money for them. As long as they're rich, they don't care what happens to people.

Thats why they didn't do much to stop 9/11. Building goes down, they get a cool $7.5billion, so they kill a few thousand people, WHO CARES!? They're rich!

I don't agree with it, but if you look at it that way...

 

[Lime]

If the government didn't mind killing people to make money, why don't they kill the guy that made the "Loose Change" video? The government has ample means to do it, and could easily shut down any website hosting it. They could have stopped the conspiracy theories from getting out at the cost of another maybe 14 lives.

There is no evidence to support government involvement, only speculation, yet Al Qaeda has stated that they were behind it.

 

[DDRtists]

There is no evidence to support government involvement, only speculation, yet Al Qaeda has stated that they were behind it.

Have you personally talked to them? For all we know, it could be anyone that said that. It's called acting.

 

[Lime]

No, I haven't personally talked to them, but its something different entirely to "act" like Osama bin Laden. Acting is one thing, but assuming the face, language, and voice of the spokesman for an enemy organization is something different.
When I said "Al Qaeda has stated" I did not mean every single member of Al Qaeda, I meant a representative, namely the founder, Osama bin Laden.

 

[AinurBenAdar]

You know, trusting what the government says or does is not a very good thing to do.

You know the Google Earth satellite? That technology, maybe not the specific satellite, but the technology, was in exsistence in the 1970's. And, if you don't believe me, the US government admitted such after Google bought the satellite (the government's most recently decomissioned spy-type satellite), and people became upset that such technology had exsisted without their knowledge. The US people wanted to know how long it had been so. The answer: 30 years.

So, even directly asking "Did you know this was coming!?" does no good whatsoever.

But don't worry...you'll know for sure roughly 2035.

 

[DDRtists]

One day, they're just going to come out and say "Hey guys, we blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11, not who we said it was!". I doubt it.

 

[BlightWarden]

One day, they're just going to come out and say "Hey guys, we blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11, not who we said it was!". I doubt it.

not to forget the oklahoma bombing and the pentagon.

 

[esb]

And USS Maine, and Pearl Harbor

 

[New_U.S.]

Thats why they didn't do much to stop 9/11. Building goes down, they get a cool $7.5billion, so they kill a few thousand people, WHO CARES!? They're rich!

7.5 billion is nothing to the U.S. gov.

 

[DDRtists]

7.5 billion is nothing to the U.S. gov.

This isn't true. Besides, as I said, the Twin Towers wasn't owned by the Government. It is a privately owned building, and the guy who owns it gets the money. Not the Government.

 

[New_U.S.]

So the government sacrificed 3000+ people so that a few people could get rich(er)? Then they somehow employed suicide bombers to destroy the towers.... Why not fly the planes into the building when it wasn't filled? Really, the U.S. isn't ruled by Satin.

 

[SFilip]

> Why not fly the planes into the building when it wasn't filled?
Too obvious, wouldn't seem like a terrorist attack and the event would be mostly ignored as opposed to the way things turned out to be now.

> So the government sacrificed 3000+ people so that a few people could get rich(er)?
Of course.
Wars start so that a few people get richer. The whole idea behind monarchy was that a few people become, stay and just keep getting rich. Not much has changed since then regardless of what they tell you.

 

[New_U.S.]

And this war is..... the Afghan war?

Also I'd like to point out that wars start over land, commodities, and religion. Thats how they start. From what you've said, this war seems to have benefited gas companies. Did gas companies hit the towers? I don't think so. Also I'd like to ask who exactly owned the Twin Towers?