9/11 was a govt strategy to invade for middle eastern oil, but was it immoral?

[Sean]

Goodness, I've got better things to do than this. The original post was asking much more interesting questions. Have a look at the Loose Change video on Youtube- it's easy to find from the site, and all the main points about 9/11 are there. Type in Youtube on Google, then Loose Change on their search engine: I think the documentary is a second or third edition now- it's about an hour if I remember and quite watchable. Also see the series called 9/11 coincidences- that's very good also. There are many dozens of others, and here's a good and extensive website with numerous links- http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Ok, if you still couldn't be bothered, here's a just few of the glaring inconsistencies, which I will not discuss further because I'm sick of it, and I'm not a technician:

Buildings 1,2 and 7 all collapsed at almost free-fall speed, with the lower floors providing virtually no resistance: this is unthinkable without accurately timed explosives- the 47 massive central steel support columns were totally destroyed, when even if the floors pancaked, they should have been protruding upwards hundreds of feet. Building 7 was hit by no plane and its few small fires had almost gone out by the time it fell.

Molten steel having run and dripped was observed on the steel, photographed before it was quickly shipped away: only high temperature explosives such as thermate can cut steel like this, not jet fuel burning at about 1000 degrees lower than steel's melting point. These immense temperatures were still reported for several weeks in the rubble.

No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed before or since due to fire, except these three, and the NIST report concerning truss failure is widely criticised: steel frames aren't affected in this way. The report on Building 7 has had such difficulty explaining away the obvious that it still hasn't been published, 6 years later.

There's no plane wreckage in any photos of the Pentagon impact and the hole is far too small for a fuselage- it was likely hit by a missile; the lawn is in perfect condition. No wreckage or bodies were recovered at the Pennsylania site either.

There are dozens of other points.

One last thing for fun- check out the BBC news reporter reporting that Building 7 has collapsed, with Building 7 still standing in reporter's background: it collapsed 15 mins later. Someone knew it was about to be demolished.

[Sean]

I'm not sure what to say to you M, except that, as you know, I'm always delighted to disagree. I kind-of listen to other people, but when you're a genius, in an elite class of humanity who can see into and feel sure of things, I'm not too dependent on whatever drivel happens to be going through various morons' minds.

[Papy Oli]

One last thing for fun...

.....

[Montpellier]

I'm pretty sure a plane did hit the Pentagon.  We were watching the event on TV (it was on the whole day from the point the second plane hit the tower) and though it didn't show an actual plane crashing the Pentagon our reporters were close by and got onto it pretty quick.  So if it wasn't a plane it was a decent amount of C4 or similar.  

I'm not put off by people shouting "Conspiracy theory!" which is inevitable in a situation like this.  It's often cried when the situation is obviously bigger than the immediately visible agenda, particularly when it could suggest foul play.  Besides, conspiracy is often substituted for strategy when it looks dark, involving some underhanded stuff.  

Edit: Given the timeline and various events preceding 9/11, there either was a conspiracy/strategy, or the Administration was being hopelessly sloppy with its security, complacent maybe, considering the towers were attacked what 7? 10? years earlier.  How come it took them SO long to act, realising 4 hijacks had taken place? 

[PSmith08]

It seems to me that Sean is not, given his undergraduate dissertation title, a structural engineer, an architect, an explosives expert, or a physicist familiar with high-impact collisions and their effects. I sincerely doubt that any of the theorists are reputable sorts (from what I've seen, and I've seen this stuff) with the sort of knowledge necessary to make the sort of decision on the events necessary. I would like to point out that most of the 'evidence' could be refuted by anyone with a knowledge of basic chemistry and basic physics. Actually, Sean's "unanswerable" evidence regarding steel can be refuted with a metal coat hanger.

Conspiracy theories, like ancient mystery cults, college fraternities, and other 'secret' societies, are an attempt to rationalize the irrational and posit some hidden meaning. It's profoundly human to do that, as it creates an us-and-them mentality where 'we' have some hidden knowledge that makes us different. In the case of conspiracy theories, you get to be cleverer than the powers-that-be because you saw through their lies.

On a personal note, this post is pathetic in the literal sense. I feel genuine pathos for the intellect behind it.

[Great Gable]

People are quite happy to disregard the official story and claim conspiracy. Yet, when presented with apparent evidence that is contrary to that of the generally accepted events, the same people will readily lap it all up and shout foul without examining this so-called "conflicting" evidence with the same scrutiny that caused them to have doubts in the first place? Why? Because when people want to believe in a cover up then that's all they see.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm not sure what to say to you M, except that, as you know, I'm always delighted to disagree. I kind-of listen to other people, but when you're a genius, in an elite class of humanity who can see into and feel sure of things, I'm not too dependent on whatever drivel happens to be going through various morons' minds.

So, that's your answer? Ultimately you are much smarter than we cattle, so your mind won't be changed? That's rather pathetic, Sean. I note in your original post that you call yourself a thinking person (by implication). And as such you reject the official explanations. And yet you latch on to this conspiracy theory as though it is the only recourse. In my experience, "thinking people" are at least as skeptical of alternative explanations as they are of official ones. What happened to your vaunted intellectual skepticism then? Did you sell it out for an hour long Youtube video? Really? I wonder what sort of peer review that video had to undergo? I suppose that as long as it passes the "Sean Test" of intellectual integrity that is sufficient.

For myself, I haven't subscribed to ANY explanation yet. Official or otherwise. Nor have I discounted any but the looniest. Obviously I discounted the CIA plot idea long ago....


----------------
Now playing:
Haydn String Quartets Op 50 - Tokyo Quartet - Haydn Op 50 #1 Quartet in Bb for Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro

[Don Isler]

The other Don speaks for me, too.

[Sean]

Good posts there Anacho.

As for the rest of you, it's a case of evidently articulate minds needing no wisdom for them to operate. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the connection between the 'war on terror' and middle east petroleum supplies, yet it would seem parts of otherwise intelligent people's minds perform a self-defensive shut-down when confronted with the possibility of difficult truths.

Maybe I can understand it, if you're located in society in a way that gives you a satisfying personal identity, I know plenty like it- you don't want to think much of what you associate yourself with is based on lies: it's a big thing if this is stuff true, and it definitely is. Most people don't want to know and if it came to it would take serious steps not to know and continue the lies, and that's the biggest thing in its favour.

Gurn, firstly I was replying to M's usual empty rhetoric. Secondly, needless to say I don't believe any conspiracy theory, but if there's one thing I know for certain can be ruled out is the totally obvious garbage that calls itself news on the regular networks. I cannot believe someone of your intelligence could take this conditioned trash for the idiot masses to count for much over many of the 'conspiracy' theories in this case.

The conspiracy is the official view, it's obvious: the world is seriously running out of its life-blood oil and there's going to be hell to pay in the coming next few years. If the oil prices continue increasing we can almost forget about the 3000 dead in New York or even the 100s of thousands killed in Iraq- historians won't know to the nearest 100 000 how many starved to death.

[Montpellier]

People are quite happy to disregard the official story and claim conspiracy. Yet, when presented with apparent evidence that is contrary to that of the generally accepted events, the same people will readily lap it all up and shout foul without examining this so-called "conflicting" evidence with the same scrutiny that caused them to have doubts in the first place? Why? Because when people want to believe in a cover up then that's all they see.

We gave up believing the politicians and their official stories long ago.  The sad cynical result is that we know they aren't telling the truth, i.e. presenting facts as best they can, but we can't do anything about it.   We are accustomed to cover-ups and someone eventually teasing out the real agenda.  Our part in the Iraq war was based on fake intelligence reports.  Our invasion was illegal - only uncovered after terrific pressure.  Let's face it, it cost Blair his premiership.  That's just one of many examples of recent times.  So we know that when bad news crops up, politicians will do all they can to bury it.  We know they have hidden agendas.   

For me, 9/11 isn't particularly a conspiracy but the official story (it is well known) is not the whole story and it failed to answer many questions.  (I consider myself entitled to involvement because i) I felt the great sorrow at the total loss of life involved, the kids, their families, the mums and dads that didn't get home) and ii) it got me involved in a war that isn't mine).   Meanwhile we know that America has long intended military bases in Iraq, probably before Bush Sr.  The matter was becoming increasingly urgent with America having almost no control in the region.  We also know that equipment to manufacture WMD was sold to Iraq to support the Iraq-Iran war, so Dubya probably hoped he'd find it in use.  However, there's also the problem of Alqaeda so the question becomes complex.   The Bin Laden family appear to have been well represented in America and were shipped out very suddenly around 9/11.   Bin Laden are a big construction company in S.Arabia with about 30,000 staff in total.   

In view of the scope of this tragedy and its consequences overall, one does wonder how come the "official story" with all its holes, has been believed.           

[PSmith08]

George W. Bush was going to invade Iraq, which hasn't paid off in oil revenues, by the way, regardless of what Osama bin Laden did. If he couldn't predicate it on the GWOT, then he was going to 'enforce' the UN sanctions. The neoconservative agenda had "Iraq" on it for some time, and the neocons had influential voices in the Bush administration. Indeed, if you follow the movement and its ideology, the shock shouldn't have been that the US invaded Iraq, but how poorly the invasion was managed.

No conspiracy theory needed: the proponents of the war in the administration had been quite open about their goals, even when Bill Clinton was president.

[Josquin des Prez]

George W. Bush was going to invade Iraq, which hasn't paid off in oil revenues, by the way, regardless of what Osama bin Laden did. If he couldn't predicate it on the GWOT, then he was going to 'enforce' the UN sanctions. The neoconservative agenda had "Iraq" on it for some time, and the neocons had influential voices in the Bush administration. Indeed, if you follow the movement and its ideology, the shock shouldn't have been that the US invaded Iraq, but how poorly the invasion was managed.

No conspiracy theory needed: the proponents of the war in the administration had been quite open about their goals, even when Bill Clinton was president.

Indeed. All you have to do is read Irvin Kristol's works, the so called "godfather" of neoconservatism. In his own words:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/965671/posts

It's worth mentioning neoconservatives are in essence left-wingers turned rogue, which explains the "progressive" nature of their ideology. True conservatism is a rare breed this days, and it's amusing to see Republican voters flock in defense of Bush's agenda under ill-concieved notions of partisan loyalty. Extreme-leftism pervades all aspects of American politics, form left proper to right.

[Sean]

The US and its poodles couldn't be occupying great chunks of the middle east/ central asia without the excuse of 9/11 to put their plans into action.

In time, as the oil gets more scarce and economies break down, no one will care much about excuses and it'll be just dog eat dog, but for now a couple of buildings had to go.

[Sergeant Rock]

Edit: Given the timeline and various events preceding 9/11, there either was a conspiracy/strategy, or the Administration was being hopelessly sloppy with its security, complacent maybe, considering the towers were attacked what 7? 10? years earlier.  How come it took them SO long to act, realising 4 hijacks had taken place? 

React how? Planes have been hijacked for decades. The purpose before 9/11 was to hold the passengers and plane hostage and to present demands, not use the planes as weapons. Interceptors were never scarmbled to shoot down hijacked planes. That's a post 9/11 phenomenon. What exactly was the government supposed to do with the news? How should they have, how could they have acted differently given what they knew at the time?

Sarge

[Mark]

About three years ago, I had an opportunity to work with a man who had an intimate knowledge of UK Foreign Office affairs. He revealed to me (without naming those specifically involved) that a decision to invade Iraq had been planned and agreed between Britain and America many months before the attacks on the Twin Towers. I've no idea if this is true, but I suppose it's as likely as any of the other crazy notions being advanced.

[Sean]

That video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

[Sergeant Rock]

About three years ago, I had an opportunity to work with a man who had an intimate knowledge of UK Foreign Office affairs. He revealed to me (without naming those specifically involved) that a decision to invade Iraq had been planned and agreed between Britain and America many months before the attacks on the Twin Towers. I've no idea if this is true, but I suppose it's as likely as any of the other crazy notions being advanced.

That isn't crazy. I'm quite certain that's true. Not only were the U.S and Britain fed up with Saddam at that point, but the UN was too. Of course the invasion of Iraq was discussed and planned years before it happened. That's not in dispute nor is it crazy.

What is crazy is to believe the Republicans would or could hire Saudi Arabs who would be fine with the idea of killing themselves for the greater glory of George W. and Rudolf Giuliani in a suicide attack on NYC and Washington in order to bring about the downfall of the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and the elevation of Shiites to power in Iraq. Actually, that goes beyond crazy (and I'm no FOX-brainwashed, wide-eyed innocent. I worked in a job where Top Secret documents came across my desk every day. I'm under no illusion how deceitful and deceptive governments are).

If there had been an actual conspiracy to control oil, it would have more logically placed the blame on Saudi Arabia (where most of the hijackers came from) and we would have invaded that country, the country with the world's largest oil production. Instead we get poppy fields in one place and give Iraq to the Shiites!!! Oh, yeah, that's a brilliantly thought out conspiracy: the Republicans intentionally murder thousands of Americans in order to...what? Spend a trillion dollars in the quagmire of Iraq? Yeah, that sounds like a plan...

Sarge

[longears]

Dear Children--the grownups here all know that Sean is a peabrained fruitcake and so we usually ignore his inane diatribes, pausing now and then to pray that he may get the psychopharmaceutical help he so clearly needs.  However, occasionally he posts something that could actually be damaging to gullible youngsters lacking the wit to recognize utter horseshit when they see it.  Please note--the idea that 9/11 was a government consipiracy is such unadulterated hogwash that only a psychotic nincompoop could believe it.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I worked in a job where Top Secret documents came across my desk every day.

Sure you suppose to tout that in an internet forum? They might yank your clearance.

[greg]

(This is one of my more serious posts.)

i'm sorry, this is very hard to take seriously...

thanks for the laugh, though, i needed it desperately.