Some basic questions for the 9/11 deniers...

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

This whole government did it thing is a little crazy!

I have recently heard CT's say that Al Qaeda was created by the U.S. to carry out terror attacks for our gov. and that Osama was trained by the CIA to make it look like a terrorist attack. Some of you may be familiar with this claim by the "truthers". If that was true, and Osama did do it as a government OP, it kinda contradicts the whole CD theory doesn't it? I mean why wouldn't Bin Laden brag about how they were able to smuggle tons of "thermite" into the buildings.

Also, I heard this point made on the O&A show. If 9/11 was just a pretext to get us into war in Afgan/Iraq, why wouldn't our government plant WMD's there (said countries) so they don't look like incompitent liars?

Sorry, no spell check and I'm not an English teacher either so take it easy on me:)

[DarkMagician]

Welcome to the truther method of "firing as many accusations as you can and hope that one of them sticks, even though some of them contradict others."

[DC]

This whole government did it thing is a little crazy!

I have recently heard CT's say that Al Qaeda was created by the U.S. to carry out terror attacks for our gov. and that Osama was trained by the CIA to make it look like a terrorist attack. Some of you may be familiar with this claim by the "truthers". If that was true, and Osama did do it as a government OP, it kinda contradicts the whole CD theory doesn't it? I mean why wouldn't Bin Laden brag about how they were able to smuggle tons of "thermite" into the buildings.

Also, I heard this point made on the O&A show. If 9/11 was just a pretext to get us into war in Afgan/Iraq, why wouldn't our government plant WMD's there (said countries) so they don't look like incompitent liars?

Sorry, no spell check and I'm not an English teacher either so take it easy on me:)

they tryed to connect 9/11 to saddam, but failed hard.
and about planted WMD's, take a look at the USA, they did not even have to plant them, it looks like the US ppl dont care if WMD's was there or not. no impeachment.... sure polls show his support is very small, Cheney/Bush are backed only by a small minority. and still no danger for them to be impeached.

to mee it looks like lies about blowjobs are alot worser than lies about WMD's.
and im pretty sure less ppl died to Clintons BJ lies than ppl died to the WMD lies.

and planting WND's would be dangerous. afaik it took the IAEO only about 4 hours to prove the yellowcake documents to be faked.
would be dangerous when they find out the WMD's was planted.

on the other hand there are some ppl claiming that there was an attempt to plant WMD's, but i never looked into it.

but look, Bush will end his 2nd term even when he is only supported by a minority, so for them there is really no need to risk planting WMD's.

and this way it is alot easyer to claim the the WMD's are now in Syria or maybe Iran.

[8den]

and this way it is alot easyer to claim the the WMD's are now in Syria or maybe Iran.

If they're planting WMD, wouldn't it make more sense to fake a WMD factory, and a small amount of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and heavily imply they've sent the bulk to Iran.

Honestly you suggest that these people are capable of the most insidious duplicity and cunning yet somehow they pathetical fail at the coup de grace.

[DC]

If they're planting WMD, wouldn't it make more sense to fake a WMD factory, and a small amount of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and heavily imply they've sent the bulk to Iran.

Honestly you suggest that these people are capable of the most insidious duplicity and cunning yet somehow they pathetical fail at the coup de grace.

why did they fail? it going perfect atm.
there seems no end to the occupation in iraq. the MIC will prolly earn several billions a year in the next 50 - 100 years.
and they did not even have to plant WMD's. wrong intel is enough as an excuse. and they have 1 really good point, saddam is history.

so why on earth should they fake a factory?

drawings of mobile chem factorys was enough. satelite photos was enough.
even when experts said that the intel is sexyed up. it didnt mather in the US.

Politicans dont need evidence to accuse other nations.

[uk_dave]

they tryed to connect 9/11 to saddam, but failed hard.
When? Before the invasion of Afghanistan?

and about planted WMD's, take a look at the USA, they did not even have to plant them, it looks like the US ppl dont care if WMD's was there or not.Yeahhhhhhh..... lowest approval ratings, rummie loses his job, stop loss implemented in the military, republicans lose control of congress, blair and labour damaged in the uk, unpopular war.... all for the sake of a few planted wmds to make the iraq invasion justifiable....hmmmmmm how on earth did these guys manage to pull off 9-11???

no impeachment.... sure polls show his support is very small, Cheney/Bush are backed only by a small minority. and still no danger for them to be impeached.Impeach over what?

to mee it looks like lies about blowjobs are alot worser than lies about WMD's.
and im pretty sure less ppl died to Clintons BJ lies than ppl died to the WMD lies.Clinton did lie and was impeached and yet still stayed as president.

and planting WND's would be dangerous. More dangerous than planting bombs in the wtc towers or controlled demolition of wtc7 for no conceiveable reason? wow
afaik it took the IAEO only about 4 hours to prove the yellowcake documents to be faked. source?

would be dangerous when they find out the WMD's was planted.I well remember an anti-war protester on tv during the london march and prior to the iraq invasion saying "Even if they do fond wmd they'll have been planted"
Some people make their minds up way too soon, including politicians.


on the other hand there are some ppl claiming that there was an attempt to plant WMD's, but i never looked into it.Well that's convenient.
We'll file that alongside:
We do have an architect and a bunch of (non structural)engineers on our side
We do have a (paid for)(non)peer reviewed paper published
but look, Bush will end his 2nd term even when he is only supported by a minority, so for them there is really no need to risk planting WMD's.Huh? Republicans got a hope in hell in november have they?

and this way it is alot easyer to claim the the WMD's are now in Syria or maybe Iran.Maybe if saddam hadn't been playing silly buggers with the inspectors and given bush an excuse to go into iraq (with UN support) then none of this would have happened. But of course, the murderous despots of the world are always innocent in the eyes of some.:boggled:

[DC]

When? Before the invasion of Afghanistan?
Yeahhhhhhh..... lowest approval ratings, rummie loses his job, stop loss implemented in the military, republicans lose control of congress, blair and labour damaged in the uk, unpopular war.... all for the sake of a few planted wmds to make the iraq invasion justifiable....hmmmmmm how on earth did these guys manage to pull off 9-11???

Impeach over what?
Clinton did lie and was impeached and yet still stayed as president.
More dangerous than planting bombs in the wtc towers or controlled demolition of wtc7 for no conceiveable reason? wow
source?
I well remember an anti-war protester on tv during the london march and prior to the iraq invasion saying "Even if they do fond wmd they'll have been planted"
Some people make their minds up way too soon, including politicians.

Well that's convenient.
We'll file that alongside:
We do have an architect and a bunch of (non structural)engineers on our side
We do have a (paid for)(non)peer reviewed paper publishedHuh? Republicans got a hope in hell in november have they?
Maybe if saddam hadn't been playing silly buggers with the inspectors and given bush an excuse to go into iraq (with UN support) then none of this would have happened. But of course, the murderous despots of the world are always innocent in the eyes of some.:boggled:

where did i say Saddam is innocent?
stop twisting my words, that pisses me off !

[DC]

look, i never was a fan of saddam. the only good thing about him i know is that he did not privatise the oil. thats it.

and yes he gassed his own ppl, and he used B and C WMD's again Iran. but back then, he was our partner. we did nothing when he gassed his ppl. with the stuff we sold him.

but decades later we use it to bomb the country.

will we in some decades bomb burma and excuse it with the murdering of the monks?
will se in some decades bomb china and use tibet occupation as an excuse?
or will that only happen in countrys important to our oil supply?

when bad things happen, we do nothing, but decades later when we can use those crimes to justify our own crimes, then we like to point out the old crimes of others.

Saddam was never innocent. but for several decades he was our bitch. we just loved to sell him WMD's.

so dont try to push me in the corner of Saddam Fans ffs.

[uk_dave]

Yes, the west (especially France and the former Soviet Union) sold saddam his weapons and built his palaces and we (the west) justified it because he was the bulwark against militant islam in Iran.

Condoleeza Rice made an admission in a speech in Egypt that for too many years the US had supported regimes which were 'beneficial' to the west but did nothing for the people having to live under them.

Saddam had used wmd in the past. He was playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors. He either believed himself or wanted others in the region to believe that he still possessed those weapons and so he did very little to prove to the world that he didn't have them.

You have a dispossessed terrorist movement, kicked out of one friendly country (afghanistan) and looking for a way to strike back at those who did the kicking.

So what if there was the slightest chance that saddam had wmd and the slightest chance that he might be willing to share that wmd with terrorists who weren't afraid to die for their beliefs?

Was that a risk worth taking? Would you have wanted to make that decision?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, you know?

[DC]

what if NKorea really has Nukes?

would they have Oil, we would be also there......

[DC]

bte, also the US did bussines with Saddam :)

and btw, the US still today is using WMD's, White Phosphor for example.

[uk_dave]

what if NKorea really has Nukes?

would they have Oil, we would be also there......

Maybe, maybe not. The soviet union had massive oil and gas reserves and we didn't go to war with them.

[DC]

Maybe, maybe not. The soviet union had massive oil and gas reserves and we didn't go to war with them.

peak oil was back then not as close as today, and soviet union was full of nukes :)

and i think Russia and China are countrys the US dear not to atack.
Sure the MIC likes wars that are not won, but they dont want to loose them.
just longtime conflicts is interesting for Weappon manufactorers.

[DC]

btw, afaik it is much easier to get weappons from russia than to get them from Iran for example.
i think it is also alot easier to get nukes from russia than waiting till Iran has enough centrifuges to really make nukes, if they even try to make nukes.

[MRC_Hans]

and about planted WMD's, take a look at the USA, they did not even have to plant them, it looks like the US ppl dont care if WMD's was there or not.

Oh? The why should they fake a 9/11 attack?


and planting WND's would be dangerous. afaik it took the IAEO only about 4 hours to prove the yellowcake documents to be faked.


But staging the attack on and collapse of 3 large buildings in Manhattan was not dangerous and was not disclosed?

would be dangerous when they find out the WMD's was planted.

More dangerous than if "they" find out 9/11 was an inside job?


wrong intel is enough as an excuse. and they have 1 really good point, saddam is history.

so why on earth should they fake a factory?



So why on earth should they fake 9/11??


Politicans dont need evidence to accuse other nations.


See above.

DC, do you think, if you try hard, you might find some arguments that do not seriously contradict your own position?

Hans

[DC]

well im pretty sure, without 9/11, Cheney and Bush would have been impeached after the WMD lies.

the IAEO did not investigate 9/11 afaik.

btw, 9/11 was not faked, the atack was real.....

[Pushkin]

DC, I cant speak for everyone on the forum but I'm confused. In what way was the attack real?

Were the terrorists completely independent of the USG?
Were the towers rigged for Cd by the USG?
Did the USG know the attack was going to happen and augmented the terror with a lot more besides?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

DC, I cant speak for everyone on the forum but I'm confused. In what way was the attack real?

Were the terrorists completely independent of the USG?
Were the towers rigged for Cd by the USG?
Did the USG know the attack was going to happen and augmented the terror with a lot more besides?

This is how I think about it too. I hear all these wild theories and sometimes they seem really in depth and researched. The problem is..... while they are trying to make more ellaborate connections between things, for every connection they make they contradict three other theories. Its like that snazzy Paula Abdul/DJ Scat Cat song from the early 90's "1 step forward, and 2 staps back....We come together cause opposites attract and you know...." oh sorry.

[Sabrina]

North Korea has nuclear material; that's been widely reported by reputable sources. Whether or not they've turned them into nuclear warheads is, at this point, immaterial, because we know they have the capability, and a darn sight more weaponry than Saddam had. Go onto www.fas.org sometime and look up North Korea's missile complement. Find the one with the biggest range, see where they could potentially aim it (and have aimed it, since they've test fired a couple), and then tell me we shouldn't be eyeing them warily.

ETA: Here, I even did the research for you:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif97/pg7.gif

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

See that? That's a missile (which they have test fired) with a potential range of six thousand kilometers; that encompasses much of Alaska, completely covers Japan, and threatens many of our other allies in the region. So explain to me your reasoning that we should ignore North Korea having nuclear material, please, because that's what I'm seeing from you. Please prove me wrong; seriously, I'm begging here.

[T.A.M.]

they tryed to connect 9/11 to saddam, but failed hard.

Correct.


and about planted WMD's, take a look at the USA, they did not even have to plant them, it looks like the US ppl dont care if WMD's was there or not. no impeachment.... sure polls show his support is very small, Cheney/Bush are backed only by a small minority. and still no danger for them to be impeached.


How have they met the criteria for impeachment. Where has it been proven that they had knowledge of NO WMDs in Iraq, at the time of the war, yet failed to follow it, but rather sent the USA to war knowing there were no WMDs.

Listen I hate the war. I will be thrilled when a DEM gets in the WH and ends it. That said, if you are going to impeach someone, you need a little more than speculation, or suspicion. I personally think that they were given flimsy evidence, but were so determined to go to war, that they did not bother to vet the information given...at least not very well. However, my personal opinion, anyones opinion is not, and should not be, enough to impeach.


to mee it looks like lies about blowjobs are alot worser than lies about WMD's.
and im pretty sure less ppl died to Clintons BJ lies than ppl died to the WMD lies.

Like I said, show SOLID PROOF they were purposely lying to congress, the UN, etc, about going to war, and a case can be made.


and planting WND's would be dangerous. afaik it took the IAEO only about 4 hours to prove the yellowcake documents to be faked.
would be dangerous when they find out the WMD's was planted.

No more dangerous then faking intelligence concerning WMDs, and then using this fake info to convince the world that the USA must go to war.

As well, if this same USG was willing to conspire to kill 3000 innocent civilians on 9/11 in order to act as a pretext to go to war (the truther mantra), then what would be so dangerous or daring about dropping a chem lab down in the middle of a gigantic country like Iraq??


on the other hand there are some ppl claiming that there was an attempt to plant WMD's, but i never looked into it.

maybe you should.


but look, Bush will end his 2nd term even when he is only supported by a minority, so for them there is really no need to risk planting WMD's.

and this way it is alot easyer to claim the the WMD's are now in Syria or maybe Iran.

Of course it would make no sense to plant them now. However, if they were determined to keep the war going, and support for it, then why did they not plant them 2-3 years ago? Now they have all but assured that the REPS, the Neo-Cons will be out of the WH come november. A few planted WMDs back in 2005, along with a chem lab, would have all but assured the continuance of the war WITH public support.

TAM:)

[DC]

is that pointed to me?
i dont really get what you mean.

did i say we should ignore NK's Nukes?
i dont even think we should ignore NK that much we do, i mean , this crazy dictator let starve his ppl afaik. how are we helping those ppl?

but we think about atacking Iran cause they want theyr own centrifuges, wich then prolly still needs 5-10 years till they can build theyr nukes, if they want to build them.
and whats their longest balistic range? 4000 km?

oh and we atacked the country with 580 miles range missiles and no fly zones and sanctions and ... oil.....

[DC]

Correct.



How have they met the criteria for impeachment. Where has it been proven that they had knowledge of NO WMDs in Iraq, at the time of the war, yet failed to follow it, but rather sent the USA to war knowing there were no WMDs.

Listen I hate the war. I will be thrilled when a DEM gets in the WH and ends it. That said, if you are going to impeach someone, you need a little more than speculation, or suspicion. I personally think that they were given flimsy evidence, but were so determined to go to war, that they did not bother to vet the information given...at least not very well. However, my personal opinion, anyones opinion is not, and should not be, enough to impeach.



Like I said, show SOLID PROOF they were purposely lying to congress, the UN, etc, about going to war, and a case can be made.



No more dangerous then faking intelligence concerning WMDs, and then using this fake info to convince the world that the USA must go to war.

As well, if this same USG was willing to conspire to kill 3000 innocent civilians on 9/11 in order to act as a pretext to go to war (the truther mantra), then what would be so dangerous or daring about dropping a chem lab down in the middle of a gigantic country like Iraq??



maybe you should.



Of course it would make no sense to plant them now. However, if they were determined to keep the war going, and support for it, then why did they not plant them 2-3 years ago? Now they have all but assured that the REPS, the Neo-Cons will be out of the WH come november. A few planted WMDs back in 2005, along with a chem lab, would have all but assured the continuance of the war WITH public support.

TAM:)

how much money was spend to investigate if clinten had a blowjob and if he lied. how much did it go true the media. i knew more about clintons sexlife than i ever wanted, really.

i would like to see such investigations into the WMD scandal. did that happen?
and really, how skeptical is your position about theyr words and mistakes? compared to truthers lies and misstakes?

[T.A.M.]

1. I agree, WAY TOO MUCH was spent investigating the details of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal, and no doubt it was politics as usual that drove it...

2. I do believe that the Media has dropped the ball in terms of further vetting the matter of the intelligence of WMDs. However, I would imagine, at this time, much of the evidence they would need to collect, is deemed classified and off limits.

3. I am less skeptical because (A) There is little to no proof to counter the words and mistakes of the BUSH admin on THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, compared with the plethora of solid information to directly contradict and refute the bizarre and ridiculous claims of the TM.

TAM:)

[DC]

1. I agree, WAY TOO MUCH was spent investigating the details of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal, and no doubt it was politics as usual that drove it...

2. I do believe that the Media has dropped the ball in terms of further vetting the matter of the intelligence of WMDs. However, I would imagine, at this time, much of the evidence they would need to collect, is deemed classified and off limits.

3. I am less skeptical because (A) There is little to no proof to counter the words and mistakes of the BUSH admin on THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, compared with the plethora of solid information to directly contradict and refute the bizarre and ridiculous claims of the TM.

TAM:)

keyword classified.

ah ok, then its ok.

[T.A.M.]

keyword classified.

ah ok, then its ok.

umm...no I didn't say that. I merely answered your inference that I was setting a double standard. Yes I was, but it was because the evidence for both cases is ASTRONOMICALLY different.

TAM:)

[Pushkin]

DC - in what way was 9/11 attack real?

[DC]

real death peoples

[Pushkin]

well im pretty sure, without 9/11, Cheney and Bush would have been impeached after the WMD lies.

the IAEO did not investigate 9/11 afaik.

btw, 9/11 was not faked, the atack was real.....

so when you said here the attack was real you meant that people died? does that not strike you s odd? what point were/are you trying to make?

[Pushkin]

dp

[scissorhands]

so when you said here the attack was real you meant that people died? does that not strike you s odd? what point were/are you trying to make?

Its a stream of consciousness type thing with DC, but in circles?
You need to work out what point he is at in his circular logic and jump in there.
:)