# 10 years later, what have we learned?



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I remember it like it was yesterday. I was sitting in our condo in Michigan with a co-worker as we were getting ready to head into our sales office. As we normally did we had on CNN while we were having our coffee and breakfast. News flash broke in and we were suddenly looking at the world trade center on fire. Nobody knew what was going on at that point. So we just sat there watching and then in comes a second plane and hits the second tower. At that moment we knew there was something very bad happening. I remember turning to my co-worker at that point and saying "the world as we know it will never be the same after today".

We sat there for hours watching the whole thing develop. The borders were locked down for the rest of the week and we could not even go home. My Daughter called me crying that night becuase she thought the terrorists were going to kill me becuase I was in the States. 


Not sure what we have learned from it, but the world sure has changed. When you really think of how many ways it has changed its scary.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Sure did lead to some huge events...Iraq II (somewhat indirectly), and Afghanistan first off, costing untold billions and untold damage to thousands of vets from all countries involved. From there to the laws about anti terrorism, airport security. Someone a deeper thinker than me will by by with much more. I was listening to CNBC talk about it on satellite radio today, they were even relating the recession of '08-'09 and the double dip we are (almost?) in now as being pretty much a straight line from 9/11.

I don't mean to turn this into 'where were you when', but it is a day that stands out in my life. I was working for a small financial brokerage, basically a 6 person operation. I had showered and got dressed and had my coat on and one foot out the door, my wife says 'something's going on'....one of the kids had heard something on the alarm clock/radio, and put CNN on the TV. I spent the next 4-5 hours riveted to the TV in my living room. I actually caught hell when I showed up for work after lunch, but I shrugged that off, I knew I had seen the world change too, as Scott has said.


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

I learned that our government has spent 90 billion on supposedly keeping us safe and secure from then until now. To me that cost:benefit ratio doesn't make sense considering the cost of living these days. The perpetual fear factor could break us like the US.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Metal#J# said:


> I learned that our government has spent 90 billion on supposedly keeping us safe and secure from then until now. To me that cost:benefit ratio doesn't make sense considering the cost of living these days. The perpetual fear factor could break us like the US.


Ya, someone in the media this past week said something like (paraphrase) 'thousands of TIMES more people die of cancer every year in Canada alone than die all around the world from terrorism, the money would be better spent on cancer/medical research'. While I understand the thought process, I can't say I COMPLETELY agree....that is, I do think we have overspent on prevention of terrorism, but you can't spend NOTHING on it and leave yourself totally wide open. The measures in place prior to 9/11 were clearly inadequate, and yes I am talking about Canada.....measures enacted afterwards are responsible for kiboshing numerous serious threats.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

i dont mean to burst anyones bubble-
but if the major governments of the world were to devote all theyre time to keeping us all alive, in the future we would all be starved to death.
all of us. 
warfare is necessary- that is why it exists.
it is, or was, what defined us as humans. it kept us in check- we are parasites after all, we take from the planet but seldom do we give.
im not talking about volounteering or tree planting or any of that, im talking about keeping our population in check.
if everyone who is born simply grows up and reproduces- lol, thats not a sustainable eco system, its just cockroach world.
cockroaches with ipods and cellphones, but cockroaches just the same.

are we better than a world? a planet? are we important enough that we should just destroy the one planet we have in the name of "humanity"?


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

Some would argue but I say it's a fact that there are already too many of us on this planet. It's a shame we let religion, and the opinions of people that don't really have impartial motives ($), decide how we go about controlling the population (or not controlling it). So we chose, or justify, war because we're unable to see that population control would serve the greater good............willful ignorance imo.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

fraser said:


> i dont mean to burst anyones bubble-
> but....


this sums up my response about as well as anything could:
http://tinyurl.com/25u2nk8


aside from that, i suspect that what i feel i have learned from it is a little different that what many others have. what i learned is that both of our governments are fear mongering opportunists that have no compunction about using a tragedy to drive social, economic and political change intended prevent our species from evolving past the point of xenaphobia, subjugation, and poverty.
i've also learned that there are some real morons out there who actually believe the u.s. attacked itself, and were able to cover it up. that somehow the gov't was able to silence thousands of witnesses and living victims all over the entire planet.


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> this sums up my response about as well as anything could:
> http://tinyurl.com/25u2nk8
> 
> 
> ...


I doubt the US attacked itself either.....but I think people think that because it's been speculated that the US has sacrificed it's people before to inject themselves into wars for financial gain. I guess it's a part of their history.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Fanatics are dangerous. Religious fanatics are extremely dangerous.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Religious fanatics on both sides of this one are equally dangerous in my opinion.


Hopefully the cycle of retribution can be broken.It's a small planet



I still have an unused airline ticket dated 9/11. 


I was on my way out the door to head to the airport when the news started breaking.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Religious fanatics on both sides of this one are equally dangerous in my opinion.


Amen... it's amazing how the Tea party has come to the forefront .....kkjq


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Religious fanatics on both sides of this one are equally dangerous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Hopefully the cycle of retribution can be broken.It's a small planet
> ...


even i agree with this. 
man, i gotta say that ticket thing is scary! maybe you oughta frame it. times when i was down, i'd look at it to remember i ain't as down as i mighta been.

as an aside, i want to mention something that i don't understand yet.
when they announced that they killed bin laden, it didn't make me feel better. it didn't make me happy. it made me feel tired. a little empty inside because i don't see what killing him 10 yrs after the event (or killing him period) accomplished.
i mean, yeah, one less terrorist in the world, ok. i just have a hard time anymore, when it comes to death penalties.
i mean, what changes? the people and the freedoms are lost and we ain't never gettin them back. the $$ is already spent, and i don't think we got any value for it. on 9/12/01 i wanted all arabs and muslims to die.
today i just want them to be like everyone else, (and try to get along in this world) some do, some don't.
but man, sometimes the killing gets really old for me.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> fraser said:
> 
> 
> > i dont mean to burst anyones bubble-
> ...


Hahaha! I agree one hundred percent!!


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

THat was a Crazy day....i was watching it live on TV...and actually talking to a friend who is a graphic designer who works in Washington for the US military in a building with a view on the Pentagon where the supposely Airplane hit the wall...that's when we started to talk about conspiracy and all...cause there was clearly no plane there to be found.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

I was working an AV gig at the Imperial Room in the Royal York. We patched the hotel cable to the giant monitors and watched... and watched. Our event was stripped down to the legally required part - it was a corporate Annual General Meeting - and we taped the fluffy bits afterwards to post on the web at later date. Aside from the usual memories, I remember being shocked at how fast all the networks were able to assemble their animated computer graphics - "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK" and such. Strange thing to remember, but there it is...

I also remember in the aftermath, when the death count was miraculously low, an analyst remarked that, at any given moment, it is remarkable "how many people aren't where they are _supposed_ to be". For some reason, that has stuck with me too.

Since then we've learned that we should trade our privacy for "security". I'm pretty sure we're wrong.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i was at work. me and my buddy are doin our thing when the boss comes out and tells us a plane just flew into the world trade center, and that they think it might be terrorists. then he came right back out and said that it happened again. my partner, he looks right at me and said "IT'S THAT BIN LADEN [email protected]#$%&*!!! I SEEN HIM ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL!!!" then he started talking about how a month or so before that they had this documentary about this arab who had tried and failed a few times to blow up the wtc. he knew right away. i don't watch television, so i knew nothing about it. that, and the fighters that flew over the shop. low, and really fast. not supersonic, but i bet they were close. 
the only thing i can think of is, they musta flew out of kilg where the d.a.n.g. (delaware air national guard) is. if they flew out of dover they woulda went west straight off, and i never woulda seen em. i didn't even know the guard had fighters. they tested the osprey and the speedhawk there. i'd seen both of them before they were widely known. but never saw any fighters.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

What have we learned?

That we can't rely on a single source of information for the truth
That most people will fall in line and mobilize quickly if a flag is waved
That a lot of evil has been perpetrated from both sides, in the name of "freedom"
That history is written by the winning side
That there is a lot more hate and mistrust in the world
That people not born 10 years ago will be responsible for cleaning up this mess


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You know, it is possible to ask "98 years since WWI. What have we learned?" as well as "72 years since WWII. What have we learned?".

Apparently, our ability to either learn the lessons...or retain them, is modest at best.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

I am sickened by every aspect of it all. over 1 million Afghans and Iraqi people dead since 911, most innocent civilians. Billions of dollars spent for a lie. 

History continues to repeat itself for sure. If you don't think that this was just another in a long line of typical, routine, well documented False Flag attacks dating back thousands of years, then you need to study history and take a closer look at the evidence for the 911 attack. 

like all other false flag attacks the next generation will accept it as fact while they swallow the one that is happening in their own time. I disagree that it is difficult to hide the truth, it is a simple process and they have had alot of practice.

and war as population control? wow. 

rant over.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

the thing is. you're talking about a conspiracy it involves thousands of people, and no ones talking? 
the man who can find that many people who know how to keep a secret is one bad mofo, and even chuck norris couldn't handle him. i've given serious consideration to both sides of that argument. it's important to me. _my opinion - _we got sucker punched because the people who shoulda been lookin, weren't. i think they knew somethin was coming but couldn't figure out some important detail or other. i don't know, and i don't think anyone will ever know till after we're dead. besides. the whole point of the conspiracy theory guys is that look! the government is corrupt, and it's out of control! and i'm thinking, well, duhhhhhh - of course. but that doesn't mean that they did this.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

SO true..but how can a Gov think it's people to be so dumb at some point?..the whole plane crash in the pentagon thing was hilarious...a 15ft hole for a plane crash?...i mean almost every aero engineer went on record saying that was BS from A to Z....



cheezyridr said:


> the thing is. you're talking about a conspiracy it involves thousands of people, and no ones talking?
> the man who can find that many people who know how to keep a secret is one bad mofo, and even chuck norris couldn't handle him. i've given serious consideration to both sides of that argument. it's important to me. _my opinion - _we got sucker punched because the people who shoulda been lookin, weren't. i think they knew somethin was coming but couldn't figure out some important detail or other. i don't know, and i don't think anyone will ever know till after we're dead. besides. the whole point of the conspiracy theory guys is that look! the government is corrupt, and it's out of control! and i'm thinking, well, duhhhhhh - of course. but that doesn't mean that they did this.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> the thing is. you're talking about a conspiracy it involves thousands of people, and no ones talking?
> the man who can find that many people who know how to keep a secret is one bad mofo, and even chuck norris couldn't handle him. i've given serious consideration to both sides of that argument. it's important to me. _my opinion - _we got sucker punched because the people who shoulda been lookin, weren't. i think they knew somethin was coming but couldn't figure out some important detail or other. i don't know, and i don't think anyone will ever know till after we're dead. besides. the whole point of the conspiracy theory guys is that look! the government is corrupt, and it's out of control! and i'm thinking, well, duhhhhhh - of course. but that doesn't mean that they did this.


Thousands of people _are _talking, they get no main stream media attention,... imagine that. I no, I don't think the 'government' did it. 

Flase Flag events are one of the oldest tricks out there. Here are a just a few from this past century alone that resulted in massive military campaigns and millions of deaths. Seriously, look it up: *the Reichstag Fire, The Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz, The Manchurian Incident, Operation Northwoods, the Bay of Tonkin*, the list goes on...

I remember we had this discussion in a similar thread last year on the anniversary of 911. I guess my argument didn't have much sway then either, and neither did yours, so there you have it.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

More and more people are talking: 9/11 - Experts speak out: 9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out (Full) - YouTube#!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It is totally inconcievable that it was some kind of inside job. The logistics of such an operation are so huge its not funny. It would involve hundreds if not thousands of people in a lengthy, coordinated, trained effort, that would have to have sworn to secrecy and gone along with the idea of killing thousands of their own people. Its just not possible. Now if you are suggesting that very high levels of government knew it was coming and allowed it to happen, to allow for other things to take place afterwards, then that is another argument and one that I personally would be open to discuss.

But as for the planning and orchestration of the actual attacks upon the WTC, Washington etc... being carried out by Americans I think is pure fantasy.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

bluesmostly said:


> More and more people are talking: 9/11 - Experts speak out: 9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out (Full) - YouTube#!


There have been many of these type "bomb" theories surrounding the towers. The question that everyone needs to ask is how? Who planted the bombs? Who strung them? When did they do it? In total secrecy? How did they manage to make the buildings come down starting at where the planes hit them? Did they place bombs on every column and every floor of both buildings and then just pushed the button that said 107th floor or something?

Think of the sheer logistics involved of wiring a building (that has not been prepared for demolition) meaning all the walls and coverings in place. Think of the manpower and time involved in such a plan. Did they tell the whacked out pilots to make sure to hit the buildings on a specific floor? 

The fact is they dont know exactly how and why they came down the way they did. There is no reference material for flying jumbo jet liners into a similar building, constructed in the same way with the same materials. 

Forget all that I just said and ask this question... why the hell bother? Flying two jet planes into those buildings was not enough? They had to also wire them to make sure they collapsed? Why not just wire them and blow them down? Skip the planes. Its easy to challenge and speculate about things that cannot be seen. We seen the planes fly into the buildings, therefore that is not questioned. Nobody seen the one hit the ground in Shanksville, therefore it did not happen? 

I have no blind trust in government, but to believe that 9/11 was actually carried out by the US Government, involving untold amounts of military and civilian resources without anyone ever coming forward to expose it is just crazy.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> There have been many of these type "bomb" theories surrounding the towers. The question that everyone needs to ask is how? Who planted the bombs? Who strung them? When did they do it? In total secrecy? How did they manage to make the buildings come down starting at where the planes hit them? Did they place bombs on every column and every floor of both buildings and then just pushed the button that said 107th floor or something?


ACtually..those questions were answered..the towers were closed for almost 3 days prior to 9-11. All the security personal was changed and the previous security contract was changed and awarded to a new contractor. Experts have claimed on many occasions that it was enough time to rig explosives. Video of the detonations going off can not be denied at this point.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

al3d said:


> ACtually..those questions were answered..the towers were closed for almost 3 days prior to 9-11. All the security personal was changed and the previous security contract was changed and awarded to a new contractor. Experts have claimed on many occasions that it was enough time to rig explosives. Video of the detonations going off can not be denied at this point.


Any evidence to support that statement? I have never even heard of it. You are saying that for 3 full days both buildings were completely shut down and nobody was allowed in to them? In terms of explosives my above comments would have to be explained. Why bother with them in the first place. Planes or bombs? Dont need both


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Any evidence to support that statement? I have never even heard of it. You are saying that for 3 full days both buildings were completely shut down and nobody was allowed in to them? In terms of explosives my above comments would have to be explained. Why bother with them in the first place. Planes or bombs? Dont need both


i'll send you links to those discussions..as to why planes and bomb?...cause a plane's fuel could'nt even start to melt regular metal...let alone the structure of those towers wich was grade to 3000F heat before melting.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

al3d said:


> i'll send you links to those discussions..as to why planes and bomb?...cause a plane's fuel could'nt even start to melt regular metal...let alone the structure of those towers wich was grade to 3000F heat before melting.


That is not answering the question. The question is why bother with both? Why not fly the planes into the 1st floor? Was every floor in the buidling wired in order to compensate for not knowing which floor the planes would hit? Why did the buildings collapse from where the planes hit? Are we suggesting that this was carried out with precise targeting by the pilots to hit the floors that were wired?

As Johnny Cochrane said "if it does not fit..." 

None of it makes any sense. I would say that its fun to come up with all these theories, except thats its not funny.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> That is not answering the question. The question is why bother with both? Why not fly the planes into the 1st floor? Was every floor in the buidling wired in order to compensate for not knowing which floor the planes would hit? Why did the buildings collapse from where the planes hit? Are we suggesting that this was carried out with precise targeting by the pilots to hit the floors that were wired?
> 
> As Johnny Cochrane said "if it does not fit..."
> 
> None of it makes any sense. I would say that its fun to come up with all these theories, except thats its not funny.


Agreed, those are all valid questions, and there are dozens more 'who, what, how and why' questions that intelligent people are asking. And that is the point, the official answers provided are not holding up to any serious scrutiny. It really doesn't make sense when you take even cursory glance at the evidence presented. 

I don't think governments operate in the way we are led to believe but I don't know of anyone who is saying it was carried out by the 'government', at least not as we understand it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have no blind trust in government, but to believe that 9/11 was actually carried out by the US Government, involving untold amounts of military and civilian resources without anyone ever coming forward to expose it is just crazy.


Well if they could fake the lunar landings......



Sometimes life just isn't interesting enough for us so we create fantastic stories to make it so.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

bluesmostly said:


> Agreed, those are all valid questions, and there are dozens more 'who, what, how and why' questions that intelligent people are asking. And that is the point, the official answers provided are not holding up to any serious scrutiny. It really doesn't make sense when you take even cursory glance at the evidence presented.
> 
> I don't think governments operate in the way we are led to believe but I don't know of anyone who is saying it was carried out by the 'government', at least not as we understand it.


Thats the problem. Becuase someone, or the government cannot provide a 100% bulletproof answer to some question it now becomes a coverup and lie. Sometimes there just is no complete answer. It needs to be accepted and people need to move on. "why was there not more debris in the United 93 crash site?" answer "we dont know"... response to answer "coverup, lie, inside job"...

The plane flew straight into the ground at an incredible rate of speed. Whats left is whats left.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Wow, just clicked onto one of the links from an earlier post. When you start watching those youtube conspiracy videos, I can see how easy it is to get sucked into believing them. 

I really can't imagine that 9/11 was a US plot and the two main towers were rigged to fall. They just don't demolish towers from the top down, but that tower 7 collapse can really get your mind thinking? Tower 7 collapsed from the bottom up like a perfectly set-up demolition. Pretty interesting watch that's for sure!

[video=youtube;iEuJimaumW4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4&feature=related[/video]


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats the problem. Becuase someone, or the government cannot provide a 100% bulletproof answer to some question it now becomes a coverup and lie. Sometimes there just is no complete answer. It needs to be accepted and people need to move on. "why was there not more debris in the United 93 crash site?" answer "we dont know"... response to answer "coverup, lie, inside job"...
> 
> The plane flew straight into the ground at an incredible rate of speed. Whats left is whats left.


not buying it under these kind of circumstances. If it were just one or two unanswered questions or poorly explained incidents, perhaps, but it is dozens. And the answers aren't 'we don't know' which is fair enough, they are either untenable, or unresponsive. Remember this event has been used to justify the killing and displacement of millions of people and change the world in dramatic ways - we should expect darn good answers, and that hasn't happened imo.

the people in the video that I linked are experts in their field and are simply saying the official story does not hold up, does that mean there is a cover up of some sort, sure sounds that way. 

building 7 is a perfect example, seriously, how do you get around that one?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mayor Guiliani had an "emergency bunker" on the 23rd floor of Building 7? Who the heck puts a bunker 23 stories up?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

OK...this one is just fun to watch..


[video=youtube;yuC_4mGTs98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&amp;feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

al3d said:


> OK...this one is just fun to watch..
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;yuC_4mGTs98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&amp;feature=player_embedded[/video]


Damn I'm getting convinced now. Is it true that the team that killed Bin Laden all died in a helicopter crash later in Afghanistan? I missed that report.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

ne1roc said:


> Damn I'm getting convinced now. Is it true that the team that killed Bin Laden all died in a helicopter crash later in Afghanistan? I missed that report.


i don't know if a coincidence or not, but these kinds of things are what make conspiracy theories spring to life:

Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan Reportedly Kills Members Of SEAL Team 6 | Fox News


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> i don't know if a coincidence or not, but these kinds of things are what make conspiracy theories spring to life:
> 
> Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan Reportedly Kills Members Of SEAL Team 6 | Fox News


Maybe I'm just jaded, but I can't imagine anyone would believe in stories like "weapons of mass distruction...", "Osama bin Laden was responsible...they hate our freedom" as justifications/explanations given for mass murder and occupation of other countries. 

Anyone here wondering why the Nato countries are so interesting in bringing 'democracy and freedom' to Lybia? 
[video=youtube;N0Wt5ry9Yuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wt5ry9Yuw&amp;feature=player_embedded#![/video]


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

The fact that people will believe various conspiracy theories shows me that after 10 years the average person doesn't have a whole lot of common sense.

9-11 wasn't a black flag event. The United States didn't attack the United States as a pretext to war. It's well documented that there were Americans that wanted an excuse to invade Iraq dating back for years prior to the Sep 11 attacks, and it's well documented that they were looking for the right event use as an excuse to trigger it. The problem is, Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. If you have the brilliance required to plan and execute an event like 9-11 in the manner that conspiracy theorists suggest do you not think that that person would've also had the forethought to have their attacker be an Iraqi rather than a Saudi prince located in a country on the far side of Iran that is of little strategic importance? Thus allowing them to attack Iraq directly without having to waste money invading a country they weren't really interested in while they tried to come up with some sort of convoluted WMD pre-emptive strike theory to sell to the world as a pretext for invasion?

Terrorists have been hijacking aircraft for decades. They've been bombing aircraft for decades. That one of them would come up with the idea of purposely flying one into a building instead of blowing it up mid-air isn't that abstract a thought. That one with a lot of resources could find 19 people who were willing to attack the United States isn't that abstract either.

What is abstract is that an American could somehow hire other people in America to install and wire both WTC buildings and the Pentagon with explosives undetected, then fly a couple of airplanes into two of them while trying to fake a third plane crash so that they could blame it all on Bin Laden so that they could start a war in Afghanistan so that they could soften people up for invading Iraq. 

Lets face it... if the US government really wanted to invade Iraq they could've brazenly announced they were doing it to capture their oil wells in an effort to reduce gas prices and there would've been millions of ******** that would've lined up with their guns at the recruiting center the next day for a chance to go kill sandn*ggers and another 100 million or so that would've cheered them on with comments of turning the whole place into a glass parking lot. Had they had decided that they did need to fake an event to trigger an invasion of Iraq there would've been way simpler, far less expensive ways to trigger it. Killing the President for example would've been relatively simple, cost effective, and it would've left Dick Cheney as the most powerful man on earth. 9-11 as a black flag event would've not only been difficult to plan, but the fact that it didn't even point the finger at Iraq is kind of an obvious give away.

So, either terrorists hijacked 4 aircraft and flew them into buildings... or someone of immense power coerced many people to secretly plant explosives in three separate locations without raising an alarm prior to the event, then flew a couple of airplanes into the WTC as a public act of theatrics, but for some reason decided to fake the third crash?

I donno. Seems like common sense to me.... I'm not even all that smart and I'm coming up with way better ways of doing this.




al3d said:


> SO true..but how can a Gov think it's people to be so dumb at some point?..the whole plane crash in the pentagon thing was hilarious...a 15ft hole for a plane crash?...i mean almost every aero engineer went on record saying that was BS from A to Z....


15ft? The fuselage is only 12.4ft and it left an 18ft hole....




















*Basic Dimensions* 
Wing span
Overall Length
Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width 
Body Exterior Width.
124 ft 10 in (38.05 m) 
155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) 
44 ft 6 in (13.6 m) 
11 ft 7 in (3.5 m) 
*12 ft 4 in* (3.7 m)
 
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

bluesmostly said:


> Anyone here wondering why the Nato countries are so interesting in bringing 'democracy and freedom' to Lybia?
> [video=youtube;N0Wt5ry9Yuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wt5ry9Yuw&amp;feature=player_embedded#![/video]


Libya is kind of obvious. Petro-Canada is invested there. Ghadafi already reduced our exports and has threatened to nationalize Petro-Can assets in the past. The current Conservative government has voiced in the past that they want to move away from Canada being a two-bit player on the world stage and start to project it's interests internationally. Now they don't want to pull out early because they want to be there as a main player when the dust settles. All the dots line up.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> The fact that people will believe various conspiracy theories shows me that after 10 years the average person doesn't have a whole lot of common sense.
> 
> 9-11 wasn't a black flag event. The United States didn't attack the United States as a pretext to war. It's well documented that there were Americans that wanted an excuse to invade Iraq dating back for years prior to the Sep 11 attacks, and it's well documented that they were looking for the right event use as an excuse to trigger it. The problem is, Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. If you have the brilliance required to plan and execute an event like 9-11 in the manner that conspiracy theorists suggest do you not think that that person would've also had the forethought to have their attacker be an Iraqi rather than a Saudi prince located in a country on the far side of Iran that is of little strategic importance? Thus allowing them to attack Iraq directly without having to waste money invading a country they weren't really interested in while they tried to come up with some sort of convoluted WMD pre-emptive strike theory to sell to the world as a pretext for invasion?
> 
> ...


common sense? who ever said 9/11 was a pretext for attacking Iraq?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

put aside 9/11 for just a moment. put it out of your mind. now, what if, iraq was a keystone nation in someone's revised view of the middle east. political change in iraq being neccessary in order to ensure the destabilization of the entire region. certainly at this time, a large percentage of the middle east is in the midst of political and social upheaval. what if that was a planned scenario? i'm not saying it was. im just saying what if. if you can accept the possibility that something like that is possible, then it's not a big jump to accepting the other possibility. that a certain terrorist group struck out at the us in retaliation for interfering with their political and economic system. if it's possible the us engineered the chaos currently afflicting that part of the world, then it's no stretch to believe that people got ticked off about it, and retaliated with the only effective weapons available to them. i'm not justifying either in this post. i'm just saying _what if_


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> put aside 9/11 for just a moment. put it out of your mind. now, what if, iraq was a keystone nation in someone's revised view of the middle east. political change in iraq being neccessary in order to ensure the destabilization of the entire region. certainly at this time, a large percentage of the middle east is in the midst of political and social upheaval. what if that was a planned scenario? i'm not saying it was. im just saying what if. if you can accept the possibility that something like that is possible, then it's not a big jump to accepting the other possibility. that a certain terrorist group struck out at the us in retaliation for interfering with their political and economic system. if it's possible the us engineered the chaos currently afflicting that part of the world, then it's no stretch to believe that people got ticked off about it, and retaliated with the only effective weapons available to them. i'm not justifying either in this post. i'm just saying _what if_


there can be no denying that fact. The west has been involved in 'destabalizing' the middle east for a long time. Most of the countries we now know as Iraq and Iran etc in the region were created by the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by allied forces after WWI (Treaty of Sèvres). But this crap has been going on since literally the dawn of civilization thousands of years ago. I always have to ask, why the obcession with that part of the world by the Powers that Be since the beginning of 'civilization'. There must be some deep wounds and lots of pissed off folk in that part of the world for sure.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> put aside 9/11 for just a moment. put it out of your mind. now, what if, iraq was a keystone nation in someone's revised view of the middle east. political change in iraq being neccessary in order to ensure the destabilization of the entire region. certainly at this time, a large percentage of the middle east is in the midst of political and social upheaval. what if that was a planned scenario? i'm not saying it was. im just saying what if. if you can accept the possibility that something like that is possible, then it's not a big jump to accepting the other possibility. that a certain terrorist group struck out at the us in retaliation for interfering with their political and economic system. if it's possible the us engineered the chaos currently afflicting that part of the world, then it's no stretch to believe that people got ticked off about it, and retaliated with the only effective weapons available to them. i'm not justifying either in this post. i'm just saying _what if_


The idea, if I remember correctly... was that Iraq was an educated, largely secular nation that would be capable of embracing democracy. People in neighbouring countries would see the Iraqis enjoying their democratic freedom and would want it for themselves. This would cause popular uprisings that would topple governments in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. This would effectively defeat America's enemies culturally rather than militarily, which would then open the doors to business opportunities.

The key was that they (certain ultra-conservative Republicans) were looking for a trigger. Preferably some sort of catastrophic event they could use as an excuse/pretence for invasion. 9-11 gave them what they were looking for, and they rather clumsily managed to twist the event around as justification for a "pre-emptive strike" on Iraq.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

either way, that shuts out the oil argument. it also closes the door on the conspiracy thing. that's all i was after. 
there can be no denying the us gov does some messed up stuff. but most americans don't know it.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

To beleive the Pentagone was hit by a plane is to be ubber naive...come one folks. NOT A SINGLE part of a plane was found..not ONE INCH.. of it..PS...engines have a Titanium core that's almost indestructible....where did it go?


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> either way, that shuts out the oil argument. it also closes the door on the conspiracy thing. that's all i was after.
> there can be no denying the us gov does some messed up stuff. but most americans don't know it.


sorry cheez, you make a valid point, and like all other theories, it is just that, a theory, conjecture, speculation. Just because it is based on 'common sense' does not make it fact and one theory or argument does not by necessity rule out all other possibilites. wanting to believe something does not make it true, no matter how many people choose to believe, and that goes for all theories, including so called conspiracies. 

I don't know if anyone knows the thruth of it all, but that is the point, to ignore facts and undeniable and unexplained evidence, and to close the mind to other possibilities is what keeps us all in the dark. 

I suppose that is what I have learned from all this: People will believe whatever they are told more often than I could have imagined, and again, that goes for conspiracy theories as well. 

Do your homework if you want more information, think for yourself. and for goodness sakes, why take sides? why do you have to make up your mind about anything if you have no way of knowing all the facts?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

bluesmostly said:


> sorry cheez, you make a valid point, and like all other theories, it is just that, a theory, conjecture, speculation. Just because it is based on 'common sense' does not make it fact and one theory or argument does not by necessity rule out all other possibilites. wanting to believe something does not make it true, no matter how many people choose to believe, and that goes for all theories, including so called conspiracies.
> 
> I don't know if anyone knows the thruth of it all, but that is the point, to ignore facts and undeniable and unexplained evidence, and to close the mind to other possibilities is what keeps us all in the dark.
> 
> ...


well you're right of course, i should have added the qualifier _if if that was what happened_, then...that would invalidate blah blah. generally i agree with the rest of what you said also. as for taking sides? 
as an american, if i truly believed the gov was actually the perpetrator of 9/11, i could not leave my family back there. then they could be next, right? however one should reserve judgement until they feel they have enough information to make an informed decision.


----------

