|
U-Know! Forum » 9/11 (or 11/9 for Brits) -All You Ever Needed To Know! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Sep 22, 2006, 23:26
Sep 22, 2006, 22:42
|
||
|
dee wrote: Fuck man, how many times have governments lied to press a point!!! Hell, no argument from me there. I'm no fan of the Bush regime, or of modern government in general. I don't believe that the US government would balk at murdering 3,000 people if it was felt that there was a compelling reason to do so. But just because someone or some organisation is capable of carrying out an act does not mean that they did carry it out. And in this case there is no evidence that they did so (beyond conjecture) and a vast amount of evidence that they didn't. Also, there was no genuine reason for them to do so. The attacks on New York and Washington severely damaged the US economy and scarred the American psyche. What would be the point of the US government doing that? I mean, if they wanted a pretext to invade Afghanistan then they could (easily) have created one that didn't involve such a traumatic attack upon their own economic wellbeing. Also, anyone watching the immediate reaction (i.e. in the hours and few days following 11/9/01) of the US administration could clearly see that this wasn't a stage-managed operation... they were a bunch of headless chickens caught with their pants down (to mix metaphors). And that was plain to see. I suggest that you read John Gray's excellent "Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern". There is nothing in the book about the attacks themselves. It's a philosophical examination of the ideologies which shape the "modern" world and it presents a compelling case for why the attacks were inevitable (or at least extremely likely). I have a couple of questions for those who believe the US government carried out these attacks... 1. Is there anybody out there with enough animosity towards the United States to attack them? 2. Is there anybody out there with the resources to hijack four planes and crash three of them into symbolic targets? See, for me the obvious answer to both questions is "yes". And once you come to that conclusion and then add it to the overwhelming evidence that exists for a radical Islamic attack (plus the claims of responsibiliy from Al Qaeda) then Occam's Razor does the rest. John Gray's book can be picked up for a bargain here... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-What-Means-Modern/dp/0571220355/
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Sep 23, 2006, 08:24
|
||
|
Excellent reply from Grufty there! I'd take it further though: The consequences for the world of the US administration being caught perpetrating an event like 11/9 would be beyond comprehension. The US markets would implode, followed by most, if not all other markets, swiftly followed by what could only be the end of the Western living as we know it today. US law and order would be broken with what would be for all intents and purposes, civil war. Jeez, some people are even now saying that the planes didn't exist and it was all either mass-hypnosis or holograms to cover up for explosive led demolition - FFS!!!! If you want some seriously in-depth discussions, head over to the 9/11 section of: www.markthomasinfo.co.uk Quite interesting reading, with a few wonderful flame-wars! J
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 23, 2006, 12:27
|
||
|
Evidence TO suggest But there's strong evidence TO suggest the Moon's made of cheese, not the least because it looks like it is. But it ain't, as the evidence against is overwhelming. We have to balance the evidence not concentrate on just the bit that gets hits on a website surely? Has anyone tried to calculate what is the minimum number of people that would have needed to be in on it? It would be a lot. So how come not a single one of them has confessed - on their deathbed or indirectly or anonymously?
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Sep 23, 2006, 13:44
|
||
|
Another good point! As with the idea of falsifying the moon landings, how on earth can you silence so many people for so long? It can't be done. The Chinese and Russians have tried for years and we eventually hear the details. Jeez, if the Americans can't hide the fact that Bush is the dumbest f*ckwit ever with delusions of world domination, then how can you hide details of such a supposed Govt cover-up?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 23, 2006, 14:49
|
||
|
The thing is... conspiracy theorists generally give those in power way too much credit. When I was working as an engineering consultant I used to meet with people very high up the food chain (as it were)... CEOs of major multinationals, politicians, power-brokers of one kind or another. And one thing struck me above all others; those people are just as liable to fuck up as anyone else. The conspiracy theorist view of the world is that those at the top are hyper-efficient, never make mistakes, never let secrets slip and never (ever) get a crisis of conscience. Thankfully (or not) that's just not the case. They are human - corrupted by power certainly - but still human. The idea that the Bush administration could orchestrate a cover up that would need to involve hundreds of individuals, and not a single one of those individuals would make a revealing mistake, is plain silly. As I've said before, I'm not claiming that those in power wouldn't commit mass murder (they're doing it all the time in far-off lands after all). But it simply makes no sense that they would carry out the September 11th attacks and that the only people who would find out about it are teenage internet geeks studying news footage.
|
|||
|
odannyboy 82 posts |
Sep 24, 2006, 09:12
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: The thing is... conspiracy theorists generally give those in power way too much credit. When I was working as an engineering consultant I used to meet with people very high up the food chain (as it were)... CEOs of major multinationals, politicians, power-brokers of one kind or another. And one thing struck me above all others; those people are just as liable to fuck up as anyone else. The conspiracy theorist view of the world is that those at the top are hyper-efficient, never make mistakes, never let secrets slip and never (ever) get a crisis of conscience. Thankfully (or not) that's just not the case. They are human - corrupted by power certainly - but still human. The idea that the Bush administration could orchestrate a cover up that would need to involve hundreds of individuals, and not a single one of those individuals would make a revealing mistake, is plain silly. As I've said before, I'm not claiming that those in power wouldn't commit mass murder (they're doing it all the time in far-off lands after all). But it simply makes no sense that they would carry out the September 11th attacks and that the only people who would find out about it are teenage internet geeks studying news footage. Without mistakes there would be nothing for the conspiracy theorist to shout about. Despite the obvious contradictions surrounding events like 911 and 7/7, a lot of individuals ignore the overwhelming facts in favour of the official conspiracy theory simply because the truth is too scary to contemplate. Dan :-{)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 24, 2006, 17:44
|
||
|
"a lot of individuals ignore the overwhelming facts in favour of the official conspiracy theory simply because the truth is too scary to contemplate." Really? Come on then, name ONE. Truths is, people don't believe in most conspiracies, especially the l....ds one, not because they're scary but because they're pants.
|
|||
|
Kid Calamity 9045 posts |
Sep 25, 2006, 10:30
|
||
How come the Western govenments didn't quickly and covertly plant some evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the desert, somewhere (on realising that their excuse to blitz Iraq was based upon wildly incorrect supposition)? It would have saved their reputation and retained their credibility. They would have done that surely, if they were as corrupt as we're tarring them all here. With such a revelation of evidence politicians would have been vindicated and everyone would have been thankful that a nasty dictator had been deposed. As it is, a lot of sympathy is now directed at Saddam - who for the record actually WAS a very nasty dictator. It's all a bit of a mess really, isn't it?
|
|||
|
Kid Calamity 9045 posts |
Sep 25, 2006, 10:31
|
||
Oh, and I'm quite aware of how the US helped Saddam to get to govern Iraq.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 25, 2006, 11:04
|
||
|
How come the Western govenments didn't quickly and covertly plant some evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the desert Spot on. That's killer point no. 4. I think Occam's winning here.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
