The Day Before 9-11

[chequita guevara]

As much as I enjoy taking the piss outta Slowwy, and as much as he deserves it, you're boring me, Loin.

[loinburger]

As much as I enjoy taking the piss outta Slowwy, and as much as he deserves it, you're boring me, Loin.

Well then it's a good thing I don't give a damn about your opinion, now isn't it.

[loinburger]

Invalid poll lolol

[HalfLotus]

Spoken by the person that believes the crazy conspiracy theory

But assume you are right about the government being behind the attack, just for the sake of argument.
Ask youself... why the government would attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? Why risk destroying the American Financial Community (which did crippled American Business and it's Economy) and the military, when there were far more similar targets they could hit that would have the same effect, kill enough people, and accomplish what they wanted? If the government was SOOOOO smart to pull something like this off for their complex reasons, why not hit something that would do less damage to the United States. Why not Chicago... Why not kill those liberals in California, Boston, or any other major city.

The whole conspiracy theory falls apart when you it view it like this. But then again, I guess it is extremely easy to fool people who are looking for crazy consipiracy theories

This is the easiest question of all.

The reasoning for 9/11 was laid out very clearly in The Project for a New American Century's "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century", a public document that has been available since Sept. 2000. PNAC members include Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and more. The so-called 'neocons', and the men in charge of our military and NORAD on 9/11.

They wanted a 'catalyzing event' to mobilize US support military action in a post Cold-War world, and to create a casus belli for military action in Middle East war theaters.

From pp. 50-51 of Rebuilding America's Defenses:

A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

Emphasis added.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neocon buddies wrote that. Read the whole document Ming, it seems you know little about the desires and intentions of the men who were running the country on 9/11.

They wanted maximum emotional shock effect, and an iconic building like the WTC was perfect for it.

The emotional shock mobilizes public support for military action and "forward basing presence", and makes it easier to manipulate the minds of citizens who have experienced a traumatic event. Please consider that fact when evaluating your own viewpoint on the subject. If you need to be educated on mass psychology, I'll help. Your viewpoint on mass media is rather naive, so you probably do.

Maybe you're assuming they would want to limit casualties, or economic damage. Far from it. The more of each, the better.

I don't recall saying that 'the government' pulled this off, and I think using that term is too broad and vague. It was likely rogue elements of intelligence agencies, with a few very high ranking Federal Officials in on it.

Someone above made a comment about wanting to attack Iraq, so why send in people ostensibly from Afghanistan. If you recall, Bush was very quick to state that "those who harbor" terrorists would be targets, and this became public policy immediately following 9/11. That paves the way for military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and many other countries. Nearly the entire Middle East will have been reshaped , and a ****load of Middle East oil will have transferred to western companies and their friends due to one event: 9/11.

Control of Middle East oil is an openly stated policy goal of the United States.

The Middle East has long been the target of so-called "western elites". Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, and Between Two Ages are the contemporary "elitest" literature on that subject, among others.

So we shouldn't wonder why Obama's Middle East policy is nearly as militant as Bush's since "ZBig" is one of Obama's primary advisors. Guess who else he works for? David Rockefeller!

[Berzerker]

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

and you read that as a confession? I read it as a statement of fact, common sense, the obvious...

Btw, ZBig helped keep us out of 2 civil wars on the heels of Vietnam while Russia stepped into a big mess we helped create. Figures Bush would step into the same mess, doh!

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, that whole Project for a New American Century thing is just stupid. The U.S. wanted to go after Iraq so bad that they faked an attack by al Qaeda so they'd have to attack Afghanistan instead. In spite of pulling off a false flag event of unparalleled success, which necessarily involved hundreds, if not thousands of people, not one of whom has ever had any remorse about killing so many Americans, they were too stupid to foresee that Iraq might not have any WMDs and didn't secretly ship some in to justify their invasions after the fact.

You have to be a moron to believe that a government which was spectacularly incapable of keeping secrets or doing anything that didn't turn out to be a flaming wreck carried out a perfect attack on 9/11 and has never had a single leak.

Given that everything else they've ever done was a colossal failure, the most reasonable explanation is that 9/11 was also the result of a colossal failure on their part. And the leaks that have come out about 9/11 bear that up.

[Elok]

They wanted a 'catalyzing event' to mobilize US support military action in a post Cold-War world, and to create a casus belli for military action in Middle East war theaters.

And then, after the attack, they shrewdly declared war on Afghanistan, which is not exactly the Middle East and doesn't have spectacular amounts of oil, but is a world leader in goats, mountains and crazy AK-toting bastards. They could have gone with the "fifteen of the nineteen attackers were Saudis" route everyone else parroted, but they were more subtle, in order to gain control of the strategic goat, mountain and crazy-bastard resources Afghanistan had to offer. Then they went after Iraq, which plainly had diddly squat to do with 9/11 and required the invention of a clumsy WMD story they couldn't plausibly support. How very clever of them.

Berz, I wasn't thinking of conspiracy theories so much as your acceptance of somewhat, ah, eccentric ideas in general. You'll believe that the Aztecs were the Atlanteans or something, but not 9/11 truther. They're just too far-fetched for you.

[Guynemer]

I honestly have a hard time accepting that people really believe this crap. This has to be a troll, right? Like zakudl?

[Berzerker]

Berz, I wasn't thinking of conspiracy theories so much as your acceptance of somewhat, ah, eccentric ideas in general. You'll believe that the Aztecs were the Atlanteans or something, but not 9/11 truther. They're just too far-fetched for you.

"or something"? Is there a door # 2? The Aztecs and Atlanteans (if they existed) are separated by more than 10,000 years. I do believe in old/new world contacts long before Columbus but that aint really a conspiracy or eccentric.

[SlowwHand]

As much as I enjoy taking the piss outta Slowwy, and as much as he deserves it, you're boring me, Loin.

Another news flash. You'll never take the piss out of me.

[SlowwHand]

Invalid poll lolol

And this is about as useful as the rest of loinburger's trash. His memory is slipping though, as there is no reference to his beloved dickgirls.

[HalfLotus]

And then, after the attack, they shrewdly declared war on Afghanistan, which is not exactly the Middle East and doesn't have spectacular amounts of oil, but is a world leader in goats, mountains and crazy AK-toting bastards.

Afghanistan is home to critical gas pipelines and is the world's number one supplier of opium, output of which has skyrocketed since US invasion. It is an important piece on the chessboard.

[HalfLotus]

and you read that as a confession?

No. It is the answer to "why", which several asked. That's why I quoted Ming's post when I answered.

Try to follow along a little better and not ask silly questions or put words in my mouth.

They had means and motive, and there is a mountain of physical and circumstantial evidence pointing toward conspiracy.

If people believe the government, that's cool. But it seems a little thick-headed to look at all the evidence and not be even a little skeptical of the official story.

[SlowwHand]

It's the basis of their whole economic structure. You can't ask them to stop, without offering a viable alternative.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with the 'pancake' theory is it doesn't explain the free-fall collapse. i.e. total structural failure of nearly the entire structural support system. How does that happen when the fires were limited to a handful floors? It doesn't.

The interesting, and relevant question, is why the first tower hit was the last to fall? The reason being that the second tower was hit on a lower floor than the first. Cutting through the building means that once those floors are taken out, you have 40+ floors above them, and all of their weight. The first tower was hit higher up, and so, there was less weight above the collapsed floor. This is why the first tower hit was the second to collapse, it all has to do with the floors above where it hit. Think of it like a tree. The tree falls when you cut through the trunk, the same with the tower, when you cut through the support pillars.

Even if you accept the extremely unlikely notion that fires caused total failures on the floor they affected, it doesn't even remotely explain the free-fall collapse of over a hundred floors.

Once the floor fails and the pillars collapse, everything above those pillars is going to fall and crush what is left beneath.

As floors 'pancake' down, the floors below (unaffected by fire) provide substantial resistance, and slow the collapse.

Buildings are mostly air, and empty space. If you have a third of the tower falling down, it crushes the next floor, and so on, all the way until the entire building collapses. The pillers are not designed to withstand the weight of 40 floors falling down.

I've seen the Nova animations. My professional expertise is in Structural Computer Modeling (going on 20+ years now), and I know that it is very easy to 'fake' structural impossibilities in a digital model which fool clients and even architects.

Great. Can you see how what we saw happened on 9-11 is entirely consistant with the way buildings collapse normally?

And it is extremely easy to fool people who find it almost impossible to believe that their government might not give a **** about their lives.

Can you give a reason why we should take your explanation to be more true than the facts that we see?