The truth about 9/11

Post Reply New Topic

I honestly don't know whether it was a conspiracy or not. But one thing is certain - Bush was aware that an attack was going to happen, and he did sod all about it.

The word "certain" usually implies that there a limited amount of doubt. In this case, since the vast majority of people would disagree with your idea, I think your use of the word is a little out of place.

Jeremy

what exactly would have been the benifit of allowing that to happen?

The "proof" that Bush knew of an impending attack is that fact that he knew Al Quida wanted to attack the US. Guess what, I knew it too, that isn't newsworthy. But, if you're an America-hating freedom-hating leftist, you can claim Bush knew. I've said before, I don't like Bush, but the hateful leftists worldwide force me to defend him. These leftists forget that it was the Clinton administration that set us up for 9/11 with bizzare intelligence requirements, "Able Danger" mean anything? It was also Clinton that declined to take US custody of Bin Laden, that screwed up Somalia so badly (which emboldened Ben Laden), and a few other things I can't think of right now.

Machloket

*Sigh*

You really make yourself look credible by generalizing all leftists as "anti-American" and "freedom-hating." Making generalizations doesn't count as intelligent debate. Ironic that it is you who is using the same tactics as the Islamic Fundamentalists. You are demonizing anyone who opposes your authoritarian view.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are a rare few credible ones out there. Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness magazine has some pretty interesting facts about 9/11 (economic/political ones, not speculative whitewash.) I have a DVD of his and it was pretty good. He talks a lot about the economic issues surrounding 9/11.
Another good source of information is Russ Kick. He's edited a few books for a publisher he works for and I have a few of his books. In his one book, Abuse Your Illusions, he wrote a 20-something page article on the different parts of the attack. He doesn't draw conclusions or form theories, just states what the available research material shows.
I strongly hope people learn to tell the difference between conspiracy crackpots and legitimate conspiracy theorists.

If you had bothered to read my earlier posts, you would see the motive. Bush's businesses had a lot to gain economically from a terrorist attack. Sure, the airline industry suffered, but defense and security companies (which Bush had interests in) made a killing by creating a public hype that more terrorist attacks will happen unless people took precautions i.e. buy their products. It was also an excuse to launch a "Holy Crusade" against Islam, in which energy companies and security/defense companies would profit greatly.

The most likely case for Bush is not that he wanted the attacks to happen but incompetance and apathy before hand.

For the action that the government took after, read or I prefer see the show on
"The Power of Nightmares."

Last edited by Mithrandir on 17 Dec 2005, 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can see incompetance before the other.

if it was about getting the dollar, then why not go after them before now? Why Bush, and not clinton? Or any number of other leaders?

It's personal preference, I like Clinton better then Bush because of his "liberal" attitudes.

lol.... so it would appear that no matter who we vote for we are gonna be screwed.... LOL! I knew it!

Ed..RobertN, if you are a president, or even just a cop, and get hundreds or thousands or more random attack threats a day, can you honestly say you will KNOW which ones will actually happen??? If the whole FBI and CIA, which are trained could not do it, i doubt you could do much better than Bush. Its been said, and its a reasonable and realistic claim, that the administration got so many threats, they could not decipher which were serious or not, and Bush is not a Customs officer or Immigration officer, either of whom SHOULD have spotted the wanted terrorists that eventually boarded the planes, when the entered the country. Its not just the administraton, its the system, of too many cheifs in the kitchen, none of which shared info, and we all know that worked SO WELL for the Germans in WWII with their atomic bomb program (hints of sarcasm)...ok, NOT, the Germans had so many labs working on the same dang thing, it was a waste of money, resources and time.

He didnt say all leftists, just the US/freedom hating ones, which by the way, are the only ones that seem to ever get heard in the public eye, as sad as that is, except for Joseph Lieberman.



Like i said, this is about the FUNNIEST far out there outrageous idea forum yet, such wild outlandish totally bogus conspiracy claims, they did the same to Clinton with regard to Whitewater, Reagan (though at least partly true, but conspricy theorists have claimed a scale and motive beyond reason) with regard to Iran-Contra, LBJ over Kennedy's death, it goes on. Wild absurd ideas or theories follow seemingly all recent presidents. Which is why this thread is so FUNNY, its totally absurd.

"Nothing is as it seems"

9/11 conspiracy is something I don't see the U.S. Government getting involved in the end. Yes the F.B.I. did not do enough to stop the terrorists when they had the information right in front of them. U.S. Government would not get involved with some conspirers to hijack some planes and use them to kill Americans on U.S. soil. To let allow thousands Americans to die. So anybody thinks the Americans would conspire with anybody at all with 9/11 hijackers.

Whether or not Bush et.al. knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen and whether or not they let it happen, they have used it as an excuse for the biggest power grab by any administration in US history. Even Lincoln didn't go this far, although he did actively suppress press reports on the Civil War (which was the right thing to do, as the Confederacy had numerous spies in DC) and suspend habeus corpus. Of course, he also didn't have the the access to technology that we have now.

Also, remember that the US was isolationist until Pearl Harbor was attacked. After that, the Senate almost unanimously voted to go to war against the Axis powers--specifically, Japan. Only one Senator, Jeanette Rankin, voted against the war resolution. It has been suggested that decoded Japanese transmissions--from Tokyo to the Japanese Consulate in DC--hinted at an attack on Pearl Harbor. It is a known fact that a radar operator on Pearl Harbor detected the Japanese attack fleet hours before it arrived. It's a bit of a leap to suggest that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so that the country would be motivated to go to war. But would the US have leaped to the world's defense without being attacked? England was being besieged. An entire city--Coventry--was leveled by the Nazis. But it wasn't until a US base was attacked that we got into the fray.

Bush has used 9/11 to justify numerous depredations of civil liberties. If anyone complains about wiretapping, Internet snooping or other surveillance activities, all Bush has to do is reference 9/11 and the War on Terror. He's taken Nixon's paranoia to a whole new level.

As I say, I'm not convinced that Bush or Cheney knew what was going to happen that morning. What I do know is, there was a considerable lag time between the report of the first attack and a military response. I also know that Bush et.al. have used this incident as political capital time and again in order to build a police state.

The appropriate response to the terrorists is not to seek security at the expense of our rights. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who give up freedom for security get neither. I choose freedom. I will continue to live my life the way I want to, same as before 9/11/01. If I'm going to be damned, I want to be damned for what I really am.

I'm surprised that no one has linked to this yet.

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/ter ... tember_11/

A blow-by-blow report of how the government managed to bungle the greatest crisis in American history.