A Challenge to CTists - A Straight Answer...

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

OK chaps; let's put aside all the complicated physics, engineering and associated maths for a moment. Let's avoid getting down into the weeds and wrangling about whether or not steel burns hot enough to cause missiles to be fired at WTC7 making it drop Loose Change into Dylan Avery's footprint at free-fall speeds - or whatever the latest 'smoking gun' is. I have one question which requires complete detachment from all the niggly little coincedences and 'evidence' of an 'inside job', and instead requires a look at the BIG picture.

My question has been asked many times before, but the discussion always seems to descend back into the weeds and people start arguing over building construction details and NIST reports and physics. If you take this one on, my inquisitive little friends, all I require you to do is to answer simple, direct questions, with no pesky maths, physics or fancy book learnin' to confuse you.

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.

[uk_dave]

Oil - Crude prices being high means bigger profits for big oil which in turn control the NWO.

But, even more cunningly, the NWO is now fostering the belief in global warming which could hurt big oil, except that oil production is peaking and soon there won't be enough to go around, so they want the peons to move to renewable energy supplies so that they (the elite) can continue to burn oil.

Now, you could argue that even this scenario leaves the peons with the upper hand, because oil will still run out and the oil companies will still go bust, right?

But the renewables aren't going to be as good as oil was because .... because...well, we're not sure why, but we're fairly certain that if the elite don't want renewables but do want oil, then oil is the thing to have and we're going to be left with second best.

Oh and there was asbestos in the towers which were going to collapse anyway.

Or something.

Oh and the gold.

And the pentagon had some files they wanted destroyed.

As did wtc7.

And for kicks.

[Liszt]

there are not many CTist on this site, it is mostly skeptics & debunkers. You must know this, Shirley.

try posting your question here

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/index.php

[Plantfoam]

But the renewables aren't going to be as good as oil was because .... because...well, we're not sure why, but we're fairly certain that if the elite don't want renewables but do want oil, then oil is the thing to have and we're going to be left with second best.




Is it safe to say that Brazil was the trial run of the NWO's not-really-so-cool switch to green energy?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

there are not many CTist on this site, it is mostly skeptics & debunkers. You must know this, Shirley.

try posting your question here

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/index.php

I don't want to get my hands dirty on that site if I'm being honest, and I am more interested in what our resident CTists/Truthers/OT Questioners have to say, ie; Red Ibis, bofors et al...

Oh, and don't call me Shirley!

[Plantfoam]

Well, above all, it was a reason to go into Iraq. They just forgot to plant some WMD (or at least just say they found some) in the desert. D'oh!

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Well, so that's the two main motives 'prebunked'... what's left?!

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

there are not many CTist on this site, it is mostly skeptics & debunkers. You must know this, Shirley.

try posting your question here

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/index.php

Actually, having let my curiosity get the better of me, I have just had an unpleasant trawl through that site, which raises more questions.

The site banner is this - "Anti-Neocons
News the Media is paid not to tell you"

So, in relation to the 9/11 forum on that site; why would the NWO/US Government/'Man' who engineered the deaths of 3000+ US citizens (for reasons not satisfactorily presented) pay the media to keep quiet about anything? And why would the same murdering, sinister organisation allow this website to exist in the first place? Surely a few more murders to keep things in the realm of the 'unknown' would be more cost effective and efficient? Do these people not think if they were seriously on to something that the evil organisation that thinks nothing of killing 3000 of it's own people would have terminated them by now?

[Dave Rogers]

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.

Putting on a temporary tinfoil hat, I don't think this will fly. Consider the following example:

Person A is very rich, and shows person B a will in which person B is a major beneficiary. Person B subsequently murders person A, but then finds that person A made a subsequent will leaving everything to person C. Does person A still have a motive? Certainly he does. The fact that said motive was based on an expectation which did not come to fruition does not invalidate it.

Therefore, the argument is that the aim of the attacks was to increase the power of the government by intimidating the people into accepting major new government powers, or to obtain access to cheaper oil, or whatever you want to dream up. The fact that that expectation has not come to fruition is evidence only that the plan failed, not that the plan never existed in the first place.

Sorry.

Dave

[hellaeon]

SMVC, your name rules.
I would love to see an answer to this, but you know, the things you mention like how do such anarchistic websites exist under such a supposed tyranny never seem to click in their minds.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Putting on a temporary tinfoil hat, I don't think this will fly. Consider the following example:

Person A is very rich, and shows person B a will in which person B is a major beneficiary. Person B subsequently murders person A, but then finds that person A made a subsequent will leaving everything to person C. Does person A still have a motive? Certainly he does. The fact that said motive was based on an expectation which did not come to fruition does not invalidate it.

Therefore, the argument is that the aim of the attacks was to increase the power of the government by intimidating the people into accepting major new government powers, or to obtain access to cheaper oil, or whatever you want to dream up. The fact that that expectation has not come to fruition is evidence only that the plan failed, not that the plan never existed in the first place.

Sorry.

Dave

Obviously, no plan is a guaranteed success, but surely these people don't believe that the NWO/Government are so short-sighted and incompetent that they can so spectacularly fail in their plan (resulting in 3000+ deaths), but simultanaeously be capable of orchestrating a huge, intricate, and (relatively) successful cover-up, manipulating thousands of people?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

SMVC, your name rules.
I would love to see an answer to this, but you know, the things you mention like how do such anarchistic websites exist under such a supposed tyranny never seem to click in their minds.

I thank you! :blush:

This is what I am getting at; if these people - just for one minute - stopped getting bogged down in the coincidences, the melting point of steel etc, and all the other little circumstancial bits of triva, and looked at the bigger picture, they might see just how silly and improbable the 9/11 CTs are. It is almost like they want to see something that simply isn't there.

[Dave Rogers]

Obviously, no plan is a guaranteed success, but surely these people don't believe that the NWO/Government are so short-sighted and incompetent that they can so spectacularly fail in their plan (resulting in 3000+ deaths), but simultanaeously be capable of orchestrating a huge, intricate, and (relatively) successful cover-up, manipulating thousands of people?

I think that's exactly what they believe. That illogical combination of omnipotence and incompetence is what allows the NWO to formulate a plan so devilishly cunning that it fools all the law enforcement officials, engineers, scientists and politicians, yet so transparently obvious that it can be exposed by the detective work of four college kids and their talking dog.

Dave

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I think that's exactly what they believe. That illogical combination of omnipotence and incompetence is what allows the NWO to formulate a plan so devilishly cunning that it fools all the law enforcement officials, engineers, scientists and politicians, yet so transparently obvious that it can be exposed by the detective work of four college kids and their talking dog.

Dave

:D They would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids...

In all seriousness, I'd still like to see what our resident CTists have to say about 'the big picture'.

[Childlike Empress]

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.


To seriously doubt that the bush government gained from 9/11, inside job or not, is incredibly naive. Where have you been the last years, in a cave or something?

All i'm willing to do is giving you two links, a small picture (http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Bush-approval-rating.gif) and a bigger one (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Terrorism.html) (notice the date on the latter). Draw the conclusions yourself and don't expect me to explain such basic stuff to you. Or just drop some more lame NWO pseudo-jokes with the other "skeptics". Whatever.

[RedIbis]

I'm not one to set up the bowling pins just so you guys can knock them down, but it's a valid question and an interesting one that I don't mind answering.

I wonder if in this thread the discussion could be civil, calm, respectful, with a sincere interest in what the different possible motives could be to the hypothetical Inside Job.

Unfortunately, pinsetter is not in my job description.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

To seriously doubt that the bush government gained from 9/11, inside job or not, is incredibly naive. Where have you been the last years, in a cave or something?

All i'm willing to do is giving you two links, a small picture (http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Bush-approval-rating.gif) and a bigger one (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Terrorism.html) (notice the date on the latter). Draw the conclusions yourself and don't expect me to explain such basic stuff to you. Or just drop some more lame NWO pseudo-jokes with the other "skeptics". Whatever.

So you're attempting to show me that the American Government 'gained' from 9/11 by showing me a graph which details a huge decline in Bush's approval rating since 9/11, and an article which details how much debt America is in, and how much has been spent on the War on Terror?

And these are gains how?

[uk_dave]

I'm not one to set up the bowling pins just so you guys can knock them down, but it's a valid question and an interesting one that I don't mind answering.



Go on then.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I'm not one to set up the bowling pins just so you guys can knock them down, but it's a valid question and an interesting one that I don't mind answering.

I wonder if in this thread the discussion could be civil, calm, respectful, with a sincere interest in what the different possible motives could be to the hypothetical Inside Job.

Unfortunately, pinsetter is not in my job description.

I am genuinely interested in what you think, Red. Please don't consider this ten-pin bowling in any way shape or form. As for the discussion being civil, calm and respectful, I have always found you to be so; I like to consider myself so; unfortunately I can't guarantee anyone else who may wish to join in.

[CHF]

As I understand it, 9/11 was engineered to give the neo-con regime justification to

a) create a police state at home
b) justify invading Iraq

On point A, they've failed. People still protest and twoofer are not being rounded up, much to their dismay.

On point B the guv apparently decided to do things the hard way by not framing Iraq for 9/11 and then forgetting to plant WMD.

Not how I woulda done things....

[Disbelief]

As I understand it, 9/11 was engineered to give the neo-con regime justification to

a) create a police state at home
b) justify invading Iraq

On point A, they've failed. People still protest and twoofer are not being rounded up, much to their dismay.

On point B the guv apparently decided to do things the hard way by not framing Iraq for 9/11 and then forgetting to plant WMD.

Not how I woulda done things....

Don't forget that the price of oil pours money into Iran and Venezuela also. That's a really smart move to put money into governments that are so vehement in their opposition to the US.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not how I woulda done things....

that pretty much what i come up with each time too, for whatever motive/gain i can think of, i can think of several better ways to accomplish that goal

maybe its hindsight, but i would think that since i can come up with several apparently superior alternatives in a matter of seconds the neocons/nwo/illuminati/whoever with their military and propaganda experts could at least think of one of them

[Max Photon]

OK chaps; let's put aside all the complicated physics, engineering and associated maths for a moment. Let's avoid getting down into the weeds and wrangling about whether or not steel burns hot enough to cause missiles to be fired at WTC7 making it drop Loose Change into Dylan Avery's footprint at free-fall speeds - or whatever the latest 'smoking gun' is. I have one question which requires complete detachment from all the niggly little coincedences and 'evidence' of an 'inside job', and instead requires a look at the BIG picture.

My question has been asked many times before, but the discussion always seems to descend back into the weeds and people start arguing over building construction details and NIST reports and physics. If you take this one on, my inquisitive little friends, all I require you to do is to answer simple, direct questions, with no pesky maths, physics or fancy book learnin' to confuse you.

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center[s] and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.


First of all, a point of clarification:

Oil is power.

Gold is money.

Be sure that you look at the price of oil in ounces of gold, or the oil/gold ratio.


Now, to answer your direct question:

A criminal faction infesting the US government used the necessary illusion of 911 to manufacture consent to install a police state domestically, and to illegally invade other sovereign nations.

Control of mideastern oil is only part of the equation.

Control of perceptions is even more important.


Synthetic currency is the ultimate weapon of global domination.

Since the US defaulted in 1971, the synthetic currency system has been subsisting on financially-engineered serial bubbles.

The most recent bubble - the credit bubble - has now burst.

The bubble to replace it will be the terror bubble.


Expect another synthetic terror attack, this time using nuclear weapons.

This will be timed with the imploding economy. Most will think that the (new) terror attacks caused the economy to fail.


Basically, 911 was used to make the citizenry supplicant (like you guys).


Max

* * *

[Swing Dangler]

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.

1.One, I think it is important to clarify the statement American Government which includes 1000's of employees, 100's of departments, etc. So I think most CT'ers will state that elements within the U.S. government helped to facilitate the attacks, not the government as a whole. As example, I don't think U.S. post office had anything to do with it, or employees of H.U.D.

2.I think the study U.S. foreign policy over the last 100 years will show the covert operations are routinely used as an instrument to advance foreign policy goals. See William Blum's, Killing Hope and Rodney Stitch's, Defrauding America.

3. It is without question, 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade the country of Afghanistan. Some have suggested pipeline routes for oil and natural gas, others have suggested to establish permanent military bases in the Persian Gulf region. Indeed if you examine maps displaying the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf, you will begin to see an encirclement of the Caspian Sea, basin as well as the Gulf region in general.

4. Some have suggested 9/11 was used as justification for the Iraq War after the WMD's fiasco did not pan out. This is debatable as WMD's were the original excuse and 9/11 was then linked to SH after no WMD's were found. Although SH was mentioned

5. It is without a doubt, that increased funding to the Pentagon would not have occurred without 9/11, including the re-emergence of Missile Defense System as well as modernization of the military.. This, some have argued, is what Eisenhower was warning the American public about. I'm not going to discuss the "New Pearl Harbor" segment from Rebuilding America's Defenses.

6. Oil, natural gas, and geo-politics. I do not think it is any suprise the events of 9/11 were used to justify the increasing presences in the Gulf to secure and control vast oil reserves. See Alan Greenspan's, the former Fed Chairmans, latest comments. You may also want to read the Grand Chessboard.

Here are some excerpts from the book to support these contentions.

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

In regards to your statement about oil, controlling the oil and releasing into the market are two different items of course.

On the other hand, I would like to know, what benefits did Al-Q, Bin Laden, and terrorists gain from the attacks? Or how did they benefit from the attacks?

[twinstead]

On the other hand, I would like to know, what benefits did Al-Q, Bin Laden, and terrorists gain from the attacks? Or how did they benefit from the attacks?

You're kidding right?

America is hated around the world, its president ridiculed. It is loosing soldiers every day, and the ranks of martyrs is growing. The current administration's approval ratings are at historical lows, the dollar is at historical lows.

One could argue that America's arguable bull-in-a-china-shop response to 911 could have been guessed and actually welcomed by Al-Q.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Now, to answer your direct question:

A criminal faction infesting the US government used the necessary illusion of 911 to manufacture consent to install a police state domestically, and to illegally invade other sovereign nations.

Basically, 911 was used to make the citizenry supplicant (like you guys).


Max

* * *

Edited to show the points I am addressing.

You consider America to now be a police state? To expand on a point that was brought out earlier; do you really believe that you (or the truth movement) would still have the right to say things like that if you were living in a police state? And would you consider yourself (or the truth movement) to be 'supplicant'? If not, then I would suggest the Government failed.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

You're kidding right?

America is hated around the world, its president ridiculed. It is loosing soldiers every day, and the ranks of martyrs is growing. The current administration's approval ratings are at historical lows, the dollar is at historical lows.

One could argue that America's arguable bull-in-a-china-shop response to 911 could have been guessed and actually welcomed by Al-Q.

To expand on twinstead's comments: The terrorists gained from this exactly what they wanted - terror, panic, disruption and confusion among the American people. A climate of mistrust and suspicion, massive collateral damage, the deaths of thousands of their 'enemies', a huge morale boost to their supporters and a warning that they should not be taken lightly.

[Max Photon]

Edited to show the points I am addressing.

You consider America to now be a police state? To expand on a point that was brought out earlier; do you really believe that you (or the truth movement) would still have the right to say things like that if you were living in a police state? And would you consider yourself (or the truth movement) to be 'supplicant'? If not, then I would suggest the Government failed.


America is transforming into a police state.

It is a process that takes time. (Think slow-cooking frogs.)

Draconian measures lay dormant in the Patriot Acts, and they will become manifest with the upcoming nuclear synthetic-terror attacks.

Then the velvet gloves will come off.


Look, it is very very simple.

You either have limited government, or unlimited government (totalitarianism).

The Constitution was the regulator that limited government.

The Constitution has been dismantled.

We are en route to totalitarianism.


The only reason I can speak like this now is because voices like mine are a sub-critical minority.

Being sub-critical, there is no concern.

Throngs of pseudo-gangs - supplicants like you - keep such views sub-critical.


At the start of the republic, there was one government worker per 50,000 citizens.

Then the government swelled 100% to 1 in 25,000!

Then it bloated again 100% to 1 in 15,000.

Then again to:

1 : 8000

1 : 4000

1 : 2000

1 : 1000

1 : 500

1 : 250

1 : 125

1 : 60

1 : 30

1 : 15

1 : 8

1 : 4

1 : 2

1 : 1


That's right people, one to one.

At the end of all this, you get crazy phenomena, like subsidized NASA scientists.


I have to go pee-pee.

Can a government worker give me a hand?


Max

* * *

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Throngs of pseudo-gangs - supplicants like you - keep such views sub-critical.




One problem with that... I am British. Our troops are right along side US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan... We are not living in a police state. America could be said to have been ticking over nicely prior to 9/11, what benefits do the American Government now have by imposing this police state you speak of?

[Max Photon]

One problem with that... I am British. Our troops are right along side US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan... We are not living in a police state. America could be said to have been ticking over nicely prior to 9/11, what benefits do the American Government now have by imposing this police state you speak of?



You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

There are powers - I like Charlie Savoie's term "The Paper Money Mob" - that see the US Government (read: the US Constitution) as an impediment to be removed.

It was no accident that one of the main architects of the US's illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan - Paul Wolfowitz - became head of the anti-gold World Bank the second the wars were a done deal.

Ever wonder why the US Deputy Secretary of Defense was suddenly at the World Bank?

(Hint: Synthetic currency and illegal wars go hand in hand.)


P.S. You are in a police state. Wave to the camera(s).

* * *

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

There is a difference between a police state and a 'nanny' state. The British Government could be accused of being overly protective in the way it 'looks after' its subjects, but not necessarily to the extent of being a 'police state'.

Maybe your definition is different to mine but after a quick look on Wikipedia - The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive. I would completely disagree that the UK and USA are 'police states'.

[uk_dave]

It was no accident that one of the main architects of the US's illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan - Paul Wolfowitz - became head of the anti-gold World Bank the second the wars were a done deal.

Ever wonder why the US Deputy Secretary of Defense was suddenly at the World Bank?

(Hint: Synthetic currency and illegal wars go hand in hand.)

lol too funny. An all powerful, evil cabal, capable of duping the world into a war for control of oil, and one of its members loses his job because he promoted his girlfriend.

He couldn't even keep his job, max! :D


P.S. You are in a police state. Wave to the camera(s).

* * *

:wink8: It's interesting to think that all these cctv cameras are monitored live. Interesting but rather absurd.

[negativ]

Since the US defaulted in 1971, the synthetic currency system has been subsisting on financially-engineered serial bubbles.

The most recent bubble - the credit bubble - has now burst.

The bubble to replace it will be the terror bubble.

My greatest wish is that the person who originated the fad of referring to economic trends as "bubbles" will be incinerated in the same active volcano as the person who started the "X-TREME" marketing bubble.

X-TREME CYCLING!!
X-TREME SPORTS!!!~
X-TREME YOGURT!

stab stab stab. X-STREME STABBING BUBBLE. :monmad:

[A-Train]

OK chaps; let's put aside all the complicated physics, engineering and associated maths for a moment. Let's avoid getting down into the weeds and wrangling about whether or not steel burns hot enough to cause missiles to be fired at WTC7 making it drop Loose Change into Dylan Avery's footprint at free-fall speeds - or whatever the latest 'smoking gun' is. I have one question which requires complete detachment from all the niggly little coincedences and 'evidence' of an 'inside job', and instead requires a look at the BIG picture.

My question has been asked many times before, but the discussion always seems to descend back into the weeds and people start arguing over building construction details and NIST reports and physics. If you take this one on, my inquisitive little friends, all I require you to do is to answer simple, direct questions, with no pesky maths, physics or fancy book learnin' to confuse you.

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.

The real question is for you: why do you believe that if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition-- which they were-- and if 9/11 was an inside job-- which it was-- that we should conclude that it was "the American Government" who did it?

It is almost an automatic that defenders of the official story make this link, probably because it discredits 9/11 truthseeking by assuming an incorrect conclusion, and makes us look bad in the eyes of ordinary Americans, whose instincts tell them, correctly, that "the American Government" would not, and could not, have pulled off 9/11.

9/11 was engineered by an outside party with a long history of similar false flag attacks-- including some utilizing such tactics as demolitions, hijackings, and the manipulation of patsies. This outside party is not the US government, but they have a network of moles and operatives within the US government who facilitated the attacks.

That is obviously quite a bit different from "the American Government" being behind the attacks...

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

Considering they're following a madman (Alex Jones) who thinks a shadowy quasi government organization (NWO) is trying to kill off 80% of the population, I bet truthers would claim "FUD" and "1st Step" and "Take over the world's oil"

[uk_dave]

That is obviously quite a bit different from "the American Government" being behind the attacks...

So, you mean some other entity other than the US government has the power to influence the NIST investigation, the 911 commission, the investigations by the FBI and NYPD, the collection of evidence (and concealment of same) from Freshkills and the wholesale cowering of construction professionals (by threatening to take away their government contracts) and academics (by threatening to take away their government funding) together with the US government itself which is then put in the frame for the 'inside job' by 'truthers'?

Wow!

[Dave Rogers]

So, you mean some other entity other than the US government has the power to influence the NIST investigation, the 911 commission, the investigations by the FBI and NYPD, the collection of evidence (and concealment of same) from Freshkills and the wholesale cowering of construction professionals (by threatening to take away their government contracts) and academics (by threatening to take away their government funding) together with the US government itself which is then put in the frame for the 'inside job' by 'truthers'?

Of course he does. It's all in a day's work for DA JOOOOOOOS!

Of course, if Israel has such power within the US government as A-Train asserts, it's a little hard to understand the rationale for him claiming that Israel is not, in fact, the US government.

Dave

[twinstead]

So, you mean some other entity other than the US government has the power to influence the NIST investigation, the 911 commission, the investigations by the FBI and NYPD, the collection of evidence (and concealment of same) from Freshkills and the wholesale cowering of construction professionals (by threatening to take away their government contracts) and academics (by threatening to take away their government funding) together with the US government itself which is then put in the frame for the 'inside job' by 'truthers'?

Wow!

Wow indeed

[Belz...]

To seriously doubt that the bush government gained from 9/11, inside job or not, is incredibly naive. Where have you been the last years, in a cave or something?

You're working backwards, Childlike.

The question was: "What do you think the American Government had to gain [...]?" not "What do you think the American Government gained [...]"

[Belz...]

911 was a necessary illusion, used to manufacture consent.

[...]

Oil is power.

Gold is money.

That's all well and nice, Max. Got any evidence of this ? Or is it just your opinion ?

2.I think the study U.S. foreign policy over the last 100 years will show the covert operations are routinely used as an instrument to advance foreign policy goals.

I hope you're just saying that and not trying to build an argument from this, because it would be a non sequitur.

5. It is without a doubt, that increased funding to the Pentagon would not have occurred without 9/11, including the re-emergence of Missile Defense System as well as modernization of the military.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but they'd have no reason to believe that it would work.

On the other hand, I would like to know, what benefits did Al-Q, Bin Laden, and terrorists gain from the attacks? Or how did they benefit from the attacks?

They killed 3000 people.

[Belz...]

America is transforming into a police state.

It is a process that takes time. (Think slow-cooking frogs.)

That's not only unproven, but you've also added a very interesting cop-out into it. No matter how "long" it takes, you can claim that it's just taking a whole lot of time...

The real question is for you: why do you believe that if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition-- which they were-- and if 9/11 was an inside job-- which it was-- that we should conclude that it was "the American Government" who did it?

Ignoring the fact that your post is contradictory, would you mind providing evidence for the bolded statements ?

Thanks.

[Corsair 115]

Don't forget that the price of oil pours money into Iran and Venezuela also.It pours money into Canada also (well, at least Alberta at any rate). The rise in oil prices is one of the main reasons the Canadian dollar has been on such an upward swing lately.

[A-Train]

So, you mean some other entity other than the US government has the power to influence the NIST investigation, the 911 commission, the investigations by the FBI and NYPD, the collection of evidence (and concealment of same) from Freshkills and the wholesale cowering of construction professionals (by threatening to take away their government contracts) and academics (by threatening to take away their government funding) together with the US government itself which is then put in the frame for the 'inside job' by 'truthers'?

I was referring to the actual perpetration of the 9/11 attacks: the hijackings of the planes; their navigation to their targets; the mining of the buildings with explosives and their detonation; and the grooming of the patsies to be framed. The American Government did not carry out these tasks.

The coverup and continuing silencing of truthseekers is a job done not only by the government, but many others throughout society. Most of these people are not guilty of any crimes, and in fact most of them have no clue what really happened on 9/11.

P.S. The FBI investigation was directed by Michael Chertoff, who is almost certainly a member of the network within the US Government that I was referring to.

[uk_dave]

P.S. The FBI investigation was directed by Michael Chertoff, who is almost certainly a member of the network within the US Government that I was referring to.

You mean he personally dealt with the removal of evidence and the silencing of field agents? He must be jewish.:aaa!

[westprog]

To seriously doubt that the bush government gained from 9/11, inside job or not, is incredibly naive. Where have you been the last years, in a cave or something?

All i'm willing to do is giving you two links, a small picture (http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Bush-approval-rating.gif) and a bigger one (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Terrorism.html) (notice the date on the latter). Draw the conclusions yourself and don't expect me to explain such basic stuff to you. Or just drop some more lame NWO pseudo-jokes with the other "skeptics". Whatever.

It seems fairly clear that he had a massive burst of approval immediately after 9/11, which dissolved over the following year. Then there was another boost with the start of the Iraq war. I suppose it's possible to argue that if it hadn't been for 9/11 he would have been more unpopular, and wouldn't have been elected, or that he thought his popularity would last longer than it actually did. But given that he was always going to lose the boost over time, why not carry out the attack a few months before an election instead of a few months after it?

It's not enough to show benefit. There has to be some credible possibility that the benefit was predictable and quantifiable enough to make it worthwhile to take the incredible risks. A six month boost in popularity, mid-term, doesn't remotely qualify.

[westprog]

I would completely disagree that the UK and USA are 'police states'.

I think that Americans who've not travelled overseas, or talked to a lot of foreigners, are quite unfamiliar with what being in a police state actually involves. I've spoken to a Romanian who told me that the gathering we were in at the time - half a dozen people meeting for coffee - would have been reported and investigated, and possibly kept on government file. In East Germany, one in every fifty people worked for the Stasi, their job being directly to report on their neighbours. That's a police state.

[uk_dave]

But given that he was always going to lose the boost over time, why not carry out the attack a few months before an election instead of a few months after it?


Good point.
And it invalidates the 'truther' claim of the US being behind AQ, since having the 'US sponsored AQ attack' so early on in the presidential term merely risks opening pandoras box for 'real' extremists to follow the example set and carry out their own attacks which could then start to make the presidency seem extremely weak and ineffectual.

[Swing Dangler]

That's all well and nice, Max. Got any evidence of this ? Or is it just your opinion ?



I hope you're just saying that and not trying to build an argument from this, because it would be a non sequitur.
It has nothing to do with logical fallacies. I suggest you study the material first before declaring a logical fallacy. I could flood the thread with historical case examples of covert actions that were used to advance foreign policy.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but they'd have no reason to believe that it would work. True, but I could reverse the logic by stating they believed that it would work.

They killed 3000 people.
I think you missed my question. What did the terrorists gain? Unless they have an IBM computer tabulating body counts, the number of victims is meaningless to a terrorist. A terrorist of course is trying to enact political change.

Again, what did the terrorists gain?

If it were to remove the U.S. from the Middle East and Holy Lands, it achieved the exact opposite.

If it were to begin the establishment of an Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to shed light and liberate the Palestinians, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to reduce U.S. support of the Israel, it did the exact opposite.

9/11 completely destroyed the base of operations in Afghanistan...although that is debatable based upon the re-emergence of the Taliban in that country.

The more you examine the after effects of 9/11, the terrorists and Muslims in general didn't benefit much at all from 9/11.

[defaultdotxbe]

My greatest wish is that the person who originated the fad of referring to economic trends as "bubbles" will be incinerated in the same active volcano as the person who started the "X-TREME" marketing bubble.

X-TREME CYCLING!!
X-TREME SPORTS!!!~
X-TREME YOGURT!

stab stab stab. X-STREME STABBING BUBBLE. :monmad:
you might like this:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=xtreme_********

ETA: grrr autocensors http://tinyurl.com/ajy8e


[/derail]

[twinstead]

I think you missed my question. What did the terrorists gain? Unless they have an IBM computer tabulating body counts, the number of victims is meaningless to a terrorist. A terrorist of course is trying to enact political change.

Again, what did the terrorists gain?

If it were to remove the U.S. from the Middle East and Holy Lands, it achieved the exact opposite.

If it were to begin the establishment of an Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to shed light and liberate the Palestinians, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to reduce U.S. support of the Israel, it did the exact opposite.

9/11 completely destroyed the base of operations in Afghanistan...although that is debatable based upon the re-emergence of the Taliban in that country.

The more you examine the after effects of 9/11, the terrorists and Muslims in general didn't benefit much at all from 9/11.

You can't profess to know what the goals of 911 were to the terrorists. Anybody can speculate...

One could argue that Al-Q doesn't want ANY of those things to happen anyway--that it is just an excuse to wage war on a society they consider corrupt and godless.

One could argue also that any intelligent terrorist would have known that 911 wouldn't have solved ANY of those problems; the goal was to turn the rest of the world against the US due to America's predictably heavy-handed response to the attacks, and to cause division and conflict in America.

Either way, one can't say 911 didn't meet the goals of either the US if it was an inside job, or Al-Q if the official story is true, because none of us knows what those goals were to begin with

IMO this is a non-starter. Speculation is for philosophers. I'll stick with the physical evidence which to my satisfaction matches fairly close to the official story.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
It is a process that takes time. (Think slow-cooking frogs.)
. . .
<nitpick>
Urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
</nitpick>

[Belz...]

The coverup and continuing silencing of truthseekers is a job done not only by the government, but many others throughout society. Most of these people are not guilty of any crimes, and in fact most of them have no clue what really happened on 9/11.

Exactly who has been "silenced" and how ?

[Belz...]

I think you missed my question. What did the terrorists gain? Unless they have an IBM computer tabulating body counts, the number of victims is meaningless to a terrorist. A terrorist of course is trying to enact political change.

Again, what did the terrorists gain?

Don't forget that these people are also religious fundamentalists. Since when are those guys rational ?

If their goals were to kill people, they succeeded.

[beachnut]

I think you missed my question. What did the terrorists gain? Unless they have an IBM computer tabulating body counts, the number of victims is meaningless to a terrorist. A terrorist of course is trying to enact political change.

Again, what did the terrorists gain?

If it were to remove the U.S. from the Middle East and Holy Lands, it achieved the exact opposite.

If it were to begin the establishment of an Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to shed light and liberate the Palestinians, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to reduce U.S. support of the Israel, it did the exact opposite.

9/11 completely destroyed the base of operations in Afghanistan...although that is debatable based upon the re-emergence of the Taliban in that country.

The more you examine the after effects of 9/11, the terrorists and Muslims in general didn't benefit much at all from 9/11.
You failed to understand and read UBL. He was out to kill Americans. He achieved his goal. You make up the dumbest junk in your post. Dumb stuff. Summary: Your junk ideas list are that. It has only been 6 years; UBL is a long term guy. 10 or 20 years are fine by UBL, he is not in a hurry for his coffee.

Next time read what UBL said. Then you will understand as you are blown up later, he is after you. But as some people have found out, as they are killed by terrorist; their death was the goal. He is still out to kill Americans when and where they can be. It is extremely illuminating you have no valid argument and your post actually proves the opposite of your poor attempt at being truthy.

Why would UBL think killing Americans would gain him a goal? Somalia, Beirut, or other actions by the USA. Now your shallow crap on this subject is just that. You have no point! You have no idea what UBLs timetable is for change! You are talking about someone who has traded a life with Marble Floor Mansions, for dust and rock caves. You think you can get a handle on someone who is living in stone age conditions as you sip your coca Cola? You are lacking knowledge and experience. So am I, but I do not spew lies from 9/11 truth.
You support the terrorist by saying they did not do 9/11 because you think someone else did. You disrespect those who died on 9/11, forgetting you could have been on flight 11, not even knowing you were going to be blasted into the WTC by terrorist. You would not have done well on flight 93 where people figured out in minutes what you have totally messed up after 6 years. You are unable to figure out 9/11 in 6 years; the passengers on flight 93 figured it out in minutes.

I think your post lacks rational thinking. 6 years and not a clue about 9/11, not even one fact to support 9/11 truth conclusion; still 100 percent false. And the terrorist are still wanting to kill you, unless you convert.

[negativ]

The more you examine the after effects of 9/11, the terrorists and Muslims in general didn't benefit much at all from 9/11.

Whatever you do, don't read this entire article (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/11/060911fa_fact3). Just don't.

Fouad Hussein is a radical Jordanian journalist who met Zarqawi and Maqdisi in 1996, when, he writes, “a career of trouble led me to Suwaqah Prison.” He had published a series of articles criticizing the Jordanian government, and, in response, the authorities locked him up for a month. Since Zarqawi and Maqdisi were being held at the same jail, Hussein sought out interviews with them; eventually, Zarqawi served him tea while Maqdisi talked politics.

In 2005, Hussein produced what is perhaps the most definitive outline of Al Qaeda’s master plan: a book titled “Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda.” Although it is largely a favorable biography of Zarqawi and his movement, Hussein incorporates the insights of other Al Qaeda members—notably, Saif al-Adl, the security chief.

It is chilling to read this work and realize how closely recent events seem to be hewing to Al Qaeda’s forecasts. Based on interviews with Zarqawi and Adl, Hussein claims that dragging Iran into conflict with the United States is key to Al Qaeda’s strategy. Expanding the area of conflict in the Middle East will cause the U.S. to overextend its forces. According to Hussein, Al Qaeda believes that Iran expects to be attacked by the U.S., because of its interest in building a nuclear weapon. “Accordingly, Iran is preparing to retaliate for or abort this strike by means of using powerful cards in its hand,” he writes. These tactics include targeting oil installations in the Persian Gulf, which could cut off sixty per cent of the world’s oil supplies, destabilizing Western economies.

Hussein observes that Al Qaeda’s ideologues have studied the failure of Islamist movements in the past and concluded that they lacked concrete, realistic goals. Therefore, he writes, “Al Qaeda drew up a feasible plan within a well-defined time frame. The plan was based on improving the Islamic jihadist action in quality and quantity and expanding it to include the entire world.”

Al Qaeda’s twenty-year plan began on September 11th, with a stage that Hussein calls “The Awakening.” The ideologues within Al Qaeda believed that “the Islamic nation was in a state of hibernation,” because of repeated catastrophes inflicted upon Muslims by the West. By striking America—“the head of the serpent”—Al Qaeda caused the United States to “lose consciousness and act chaotically against those who attacked it. This entitled the party that hit the serpent to lead the Islamic nation.” This first stage, says Hussein, ended in 2003, when American troops entered Baghdad.

[hellaeon]

Childlike -> Are you putting forth that because of 9/11, the immediate law changes were a benefit to bush (even worldwide to other leaders introducing terror laws) ? I think your graph clearly shows what kind of reaction he got - and since when in a country such as the USA can those laws not be modified or even removed. (if thats what you mean?)

ATrain -> Your not explaining what they actually gained. Thats the question. Your implying they did it but what did they gain.

As for Max *sigh* Police state eh? You really need to get out more. If you do live in a democracy, be thankful.

[Bell]

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?


Actually, it is under 3000 people. There were people from many nationalities killed that day, and the death toll was 2974.

[RedIbis]

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

.

This morning I suggested that I would respond to this question as long as the OP wasn't simply an opportunity to bash the expected response. It's a good question and it deserves a thoughtful answer.

At the risk of repeating what others have said on the thread, and oversimplifying a complicated topic, I'm going to speak subjectively.

No 9/11 no Iraq.

[Disbelief]

This morning I suggested that I would respond to this question as long as the OP wasn't simply an opportunity to bash the expected response. It's a good question and it deserves a thoughtful answer.

At the risk of repeating what others have said on the thread, and oversimplifying a complicated topic, I'm going to speak subjectively.

No 9/11 no Iraq.

You really think that? I think Bush would have found some reason to go into Iraq. Technically, since Desert Storm was never formally ended because Saddam did not fulfill his end of the deal, he could have just gone in.

[Bell]

No 9/11 no Iraq.

Yes, so what?

Do you think the gubmint carried out 9/11 to invade Iraq and get it's ass kicked? (no offense to the military)

Also, kind of a cumbersome way to get there, isn't it?

[RedIbis]

You really think that? I think Bush would have found some reason to go into Iraq. Technically, since Desert Storm was never formally ended because Saddam did not fulfill his end of the deal, he could have just gone in.

Doubtful. Most Americans don't have the stomach for unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations without provocation. As ridiculous as the Iraq-9/11 connection was, it was enough to get most of America waving plastic flags and calling for Iraqi blood.

[RedIbis]

Yes, so what?

Do you think the gubmint carried out 9/11 to invade Iraq and get it's ass kicked? (no offense to the military)

Also, kind of a cumbersome way to get there, isn't it?

Peace is not profitable, war is. Permanent, indefinite occupation is hugely profitable. It might not be militarily expedient, but it's a damn good business.

[Disbelief]

Doubtful. Most Americans don't have the stomach for unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations without provocation. As ridiculous as the Iraq-9/11 connection was, it was enough to get most of America waving plastic flags and calling for Iraqi blood.

But the scope of the operation was way out of line with the intended benefits. Would it not have been easier to plant WMDs in Iraq and have someone find them. Hell, using them on the Kurds, to mimic what Saddam himself had done, would have made more sense as a pretense to enter. The US population had no problem helping the Kuwaitis, so why would it be different 10 years after Desert Storm?

I am not arguing to just argue, I am really curious about your answers.

[Bell]

Peace is not profitable, war is. Permanent, indefinite occupation is hugely profitable. It might not be militarily expedient, but it's a damn good business.

Before I continue, let us be clear.

Do you believe the US government carried out the attacks to invade Iraq?

[EventHorizon]

I think you missed my question. What did the terrorists gain? Unless they have an IBM computer tabulating body counts, the number of victims is meaningless to a terrorist. A terrorist of course is trying to enact political change.

Again, what did the terrorists gain?

If it were to remove the U.S. from the Middle East and Holy Lands, it achieved the exact opposite.

If it were to begin the establishment of an Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to shed light and liberate the Palestinians, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to reduce U.S. support of the Israel, it did the exact opposite.

9/11 completely destroyed the base of operations in Afghanistan...although that is debatable based upon the re-emergence of the Taliban in that country.

The more you examine the after effects of 9/11, the terrorists and Muslims in general didn't benefit much at all from 9/11.

So every time you attempt something you achieve the expected goal? That's good to know. It is impossible to fail at anything in life! This is fantastic news.

[RedIbis]

But the scope of the operation was way out of line with the intended benefits. Would it not have been easier to plant WMDs in Iraq and have someone find them. Hell, using them on the Kurds, to mimic what Saddam himself had done, would have made more sense as a pretense to enter. The US population had no problem helping the Kuwaitis, so why would it be different 10 years after Desert Storm?

I am not arguing to just argue, I am really curious about your answers.

Sure, it would have been easy to plant WMDs but that is now in the realm of speculation. We don't know if it was attempted. We only know the result of these plans, not the plans themselves.

The OP asked what benefit an Inside Job would be to the gov't. Perhaps we might agree that 9/11 provided the pretext for massive corporate profit.

I don't think you're being difficult or disingenuous, you're asking perfectly logical questions, and I appreciate the civil discussion.

[RedIbis]

Before I continue, let us be clear.

Do you believe the US government carried out the attacks to invade Iraq?

To be as clear as possible I would say that it is probable members within the US gov't implemented the attacks to create the conditions that would allow the US to not only invade Iraq but create a permanent presence in the middle east, where they didn't have one before.

[T.A.M.]

Doubtful. Most Americans don't have the stomach for unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations without provocation. As ridiculous as the Iraq-9/11 connection was, it was enough to get most of America waving plastic flags and calling for Iraqi blood.

I Disagree.

Peace is not profitable, war is. Permanent, indefinite occupation is hugely profitable. It might not be militarily expedient, but it's a damn good business.

I agree.

Sure, it would have been easy to plant WMDs but that is now in the realm of speculation. We don't know if it was attempted. We only know the result of these plans, not the plans themselves.

The OP asked what benefit an Inside Job would be to the gov't. Perhaps we might agree that 9/11 provided the pretext for massive corporate profit.

I don't think you're being difficult or disingenuous, you're asking perfectly logical questions, and I appreciate the civil discussion.

I agree.

TAM:)

[Praktik]

You failed to understand and read UBL. He was out to kill Americans. He achieved his goal. You make up the dumbest junk in your post. Dumb stuff. Summary: Your junk ideas list are that. It has only been 6 years; UBL is a long term guy. 10 or 20 years are fine by UBL, he is not in a hurry for his coffee.

Next time read what UBL said. Then you will understand as you are blown up later, he is after you. But as some people have found out, as they are killed by terrorist; their death was the goal. He is still out to kill Americans when and where they can be. It is extremely illuminating you have no valid argument and your post actually proves the opposite of your poor attempt at being truthy.

Why would UBL think killing Americans would gain him a goal? Somalia, Beirut, or other actions by the USA. Now your shallow crap on this subject is just that.


So I'm generally with you here buddy but I think we could probably flesh out the goals of OBL and Al Qaeda a little more than just saying they wanted to "kill americans". It is definitely fair to highlight Somalia, US support for regional "strong men" and the usual litany of things America has done that have resulted in pain for peoples in the region. You're right on one level - they did want to exact their pound of flesh and had reason to want that.

But beyond all that, I think there were deeper goals. Bin Laden is a tough nut - this guy is wanted by many governments the world over and was on the run for a long time prior to 9/11. During this time he managed to grow a movement, stay alive and execute some highly successful operations. One doesn't do all that without having an exceedingly effective ability to plan strategically. 9/11 was always going to have a "next phase" and a reaction from America - OBL and Al Qaeda knew to design the plan so that the damage would be spectacular enough to draw America in. They killed a few americans here and there before - but never in the homeland, and it never resulted in the kind of involvement in the MIddle East we've seen by America since 9/11.

So what did Al Qaeda and OBL gain? To answer Swing Dangler's question: a whole lot.



America has successfully inflamed animous towards it across the Middle East. Most of the Arab street view the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as direct attacks upon Islam, and yet another instance in a catalogue of pain and suffering implemented by America in a long history that already had the cauldron smouldering long before 9/11. Nowadays, that cauldron is boiling over.

America has committed many men to the region - providing even more plentiful chances to kill Americans to the growing number of recruits eager to do so.

Strategically, America's overall situation is worsening. The WMD has most of the world thinking its "cried wolf" and America will find it even harder to enlist the aid of allies in future military endeavours. America's military is stretched so thin right now that the opening of another theatre may not even be possible without serious strain and discomfort.

Even though Al Qaeda brought upon itself a much more intense pressure from American intelligence and military - even if it is broken - their mission will have been successful. Other like minded groups have flowered all over the world - check out the government's own National Intelligence Estimate over the past few years if you doubt this.

Maybe you missed the news that America has been withdrawing ALL of its troops from Saudi Arabia - a key OBL and Al Qaeda demand


To be honest, I could keep going. If you look at the big picture, its clear that 9/11 has given Osama what he wanted and then some. The particularly incompetent managing of Iraq has made the penalties for America particularly acute: the drawn-out conflict is exacting a bigger cost than a more wisely managed occupation would have (if such a thing were even possible under the current Administration).

There is one negative side effect for Al Qaeda to America's involvement in the Middle East since 9/11: prior to 9/11 their appeal was more general among Sunni and Shiite. You could still find an anti-shiite rant by an Al Qaeda member from time to time, but by and large, they were close to being a unifying force for all Islamists, Sunni and Shiite, against the foreigners and their stooges in the region. The war in Iraq and Zarqawi changed all that - Al Qaeda itself became more anti-Shiite under his influence and the savagery in Iraq bettwen Sunni and Shiite took it over the edge. Al Qaeda can no longer BE the "unifying force".

However, I do believe that they've made the likelihood of a future "unifying force" arising greater by creating the conditions for an even more virulent and widespread Anti-Americanism across the region. In that sense, the "long game" will probably still keep most of the benefits from 9/11 in OBL's corner.

[PhantomWolf]

Again, what did the terrorists gain?

If it were to remove the U.S. from the Middle East and Holy Lands, it achieved the exact opposite.

If it were to begin the establishment of an Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to shed light and liberate the Palestinians, it did the exact opposite.

If it were to reduce U.S. support of the Israel, it did the exact opposite.

9/11 completely destroyed the base of operations in Afghanistan...although that is debatable based upon the re-emergence of the Taliban in that country.

The more you examine the after effects of 9/11, the terrorists and Muslims in general didn't benefit much at all from 9/11.

You are seriouisly proving that like Americans you have zero understanding of the Islamic Jihadi's mind. Their goal isn't based on one or two or even five years. OBL is a vetern of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He's doing to the US exactly what he saw done to the Soviets, drawing them into a expensive war they can't win and then just bleed them dry till they bankrupt themselves. He knew that they wouldn't win in one strike, but that by taking time and playing the US he can destroy them finacially. Without their money machine they can't support their overseas bases or Israel, that removes their support for Israel and their Middle Eastern bases. At that point they have the freedom to take control of the war torn countries exactly like the Taliban did in Afghanistan, unite them under one banner and destroy Israel.

You think that he didn't get anything out of it? He got exactly what he wanted out of it, dead Americans and more dying every day all while the US burns its money and its war machine to the ground. OBL is laughing at the US and bidding his time as he watches them head down exactly the same path as the Soviet Union did 30 years ago.

[RedIbis]

I Disagree.



I agree.



I agree.

TAM:)

2 out of 3- I'll take it!

[Disbelief]

Sure, it would have been easy to plant WMDs but that is now in the realm of speculation. We don't know if it was attempted. We only know the result of these plans, not the plans themselves.
Remember, CTs are also in the realm of speculation. If you think something is easier to accomplish and have better results, why would the perpetrators not think the same? "Keep It Simple Stupid" is an excellent mantra, especially when the government is involved.


The OP asked what benefit an Inside Job would be to the gov't. Perhaps we might agree that 9/11 provided the pretext for massive corporate profit.

For some and a HUGE detriment to others. Look at the $39 billion Q3 loss that GM just posted and the $380 million for Ford. One of the biggest factors is the cost of gas for companies that get most of their profits from big vehicles.

I don't think you're being difficult or disingenuous, you're asking perfectly logical questions, and I appreciate the civil discussion.

I enjoy civil discussions much more than the constant barbs (though they can be fun also).

[PhantomWolf]

No 9/11 no Iraq.

I disagree, Bush was going after Sadam no matter what. Yes 9/11 helped get him support that he wouldn'rt have had, but it also hindered in that it forced him to split his forces and go after Afghanistan as well. With out 9/11 they'd have had to push the WMD much harder, but they still would have gone in.

[T.A.M.]

To be as clear as possible I would say that it is probable members within the US gov't implemented the attacks to create the conditions that would allow the US to not only invade Iraq but create a permanent presence in the middle east, where they didn't have one before.

I Disagree.

Do you still "take it"?

TAM;)

[RedIbis]

I Disagree.

Do you still "take it"?

TAM;)

Sure, why not? I don't expect complete agreement on these complicated issues. I think our agreement on at least some of these points is progress.

If nothing else, this exchange proves that we can discuss a topic without rancor, agree on some points, disagree on others.

[PhantomWolf]

To be as clear as possible I would say that it is probable members within the US gov't implemented the attacks to create the conditions that would allow the US to not only invade Iraq but create a permanent presence in the middle east, where they didn't have one before.

To have a permanent presence in the Middle East all they had to do was not attack Iraq. They had a base in SA on the pretext of protecting the no fly zones. All they had to do was mantain the status quo, and that wouldn't have cost 6,000+ US lives.

[RedIbis]

I disagree, Bush was going after Sadam no matter what. Yes 9/11 helped get him support that he wouldn'rt have had, but it also hindered in that it forced him to split his forces and go after Afghanistan as well. With out 9/11 they'd have had to push the WMD much harder, but they still would have gone in.


This almost entirely speculation. We have no idea whether or not Bush would have taken the country to war without 9/11.

The splitting of forces or attempting a two front war is one of the oldest military mistakes in history. But sending 11,000 to Afghanistan and 150,000 to Iraq is hardly splitting forces.

[Bell]

To be as clear as possible I would say that it is probable members within the US gov't implemented the attacks to create the conditions that would allow the US to not only invade Iraq but create a permanent presence in the middle east, where they didn't have one before.

From a layman's view: why didn't the powers-that-be blaim the attacks on Iraq then, instead of Al Qaeda (and Afghanistan for harboring them)?

They could have choosen to make the majority of the hijackers come from Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia.

And also, if they could fake the 9/11 attacks, how come they couldn't fake some weapons of mass destruction?

[RedIbis]

All they had to do was mantain the status quo, and that wouldn't have cost 6,000+ US lives.


Then how would they access all that Iraqi oil?

To readress the OP, the occupation of Iraq and securing the oil is not for the purpose of providing cheap gas for American SUVs. The purpose of occupying Iraq is to keep oil contracts from competing economic rivals such as China, Russia and India.

To reiterate, I am not suggesting that the US military is occupying Iraq so that we can have cheap gas. It's much more important that this oil does not go to economic rivals.

After 9/11 no one dare question the US's right to attack its perceived threats.

[PhantomWolf]

This almost entirely speculation. We have no idea whether or not Bush would have taken the country to war without 9/11.

yes and no. We know that many in his circle were pushing Clinton to invade Iraq during the late 1990's but he wouldn't. Bush wouldn't have had any problems with their advice, and add to that the attempted hit on his parents. Bush wanted Sadam strung up like a piñata and the stuff that was coming out of the White House from early 2001 made it quite obvious he was just waiting for an excuse to do it. 9/11 helped by giving him an excuse, but had the Iraqis fired on and shot down a US or British plane, the odds are that would have been enough too.

[Praktik]

For some and a HUGE detriment to others. Look at the $39 billion Q3 loss that GM just posted and the $380 million for Ford. One of the biggest factors is the cost of gas for companies that get most of their profits from big vehicles.


Not to mention the fact that the Military Industrial Complex was doing fine ever since the wall fell. Sure - under Clinton there were some cutbacks, but if you look at the trend even through his administration it was an upward curve in expenditures.

With the Bush crew in power - was there any serious thought that the MIC wouldn't have a heyday? The Republican congress was out there shovellin cash like there was no tomorrow - and I can guarantee that even without Afghanistan and Iraq, that that whole crew of patriots would be doing just fine.

Sure, there was gonna be an increase in spending due to war - but could an increase in defense spending over the increases in defense spending that were gonna be happening anyway really be a large enough reason to implement 9/11?

I would even go so far as to predict that Bush would have likely gone to Iraq anyway - his whole PNAC crew had a hard-on for Iraq since they stopped the first Gulf War - wouldn't the WMD thing have been played up without 9/11? They would have found a reason - and if not in the first term, than in the 2nd.

The other question is this: if America self-inflicted 9/11 in order to increase defense spending by making it easier to start wars and occupy Iraq - why wouldn't they have designed the operation to include say, even ONE hijacker from Iraq? If this was all orchestrated by Bush or the Bildeberger group or Zionists who wanted to go into Iraq, why couldn't they have had it go down so that out of the smoke rising from the Twin Towers, the smoke clouds would spell "I DID IT - yours truly, Saddam Hussein"?

Instead the only thing they had was a discredited piece of intelligence from a foreign agency looking to curry favour saying that an Al Qaeda agent had met with an Iraqi Intelligence agent in Prague.

Wow - pretty lame casus belli. Surely they could have done WAY better than that!

Luckily for them, simple repitition of the words 9/11 and Saddam on TV was enough for them to get the barest minimum of support to launch the war in Iraq - support that went on a downward trend that hasn't really stopped since well, the whole thing started. Still - it could have been a lot easier for them if there was something "meatier"...

[T.A.M.]

ANy action BUSH and Co may or may not have taken is purely speculation on both sides of the argument. To say he would have taken Saddam out anyway is to speculate that BUSH had thoughts of avenging his Fathers misattempt. To speculate that he needed 9/11 for Iraq, is to assume that Bush and Co could not have come up with some other reason to invade the country.

Given the history of Bush, Snr and Jr, I think that it is likely that Bush Jnr, if wanting to finish what Daddy started, would have found a way...9/11 or no 9/11.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

To speculate that he needed 9/11 for Iraq, is to assume that Bush and Co could not have come up with some other reason to invade the country.

Given the history of Bush, Snr and Jr, I think that it is likely that Bush Jnr, if wanting to finish what Daddy started, would have found a way...9/11 or no 9/11.

TAM:)


It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other. We could debate whether the relationship between these two events is strong, possibly it isn't. But the fact is that Iraq was invaded and 9/11 was invoked in the run up to the war. This is not speculation, it's incontestable.

[Arus808]

No 9/11 no Iraq.


actually that is false. hte invasion of iraq was in the planning stages since Clinton's administration.

Just that 911 gave us a reason to invade since our soldiers were already in that part of the world (trying liberate afghanistan)

[PhantomWolf]

Then how would they access all that Iraqi oil?

How do they have access to it now? Iraqi oil is under the ownership of the Iraqi Goverment and the US imports of Iraqi oil, a minute fraction of theor total oil import, has decreased since 2001.

To readress the OP, the occupation of Iraq and securing the oil is not for the purpose of providing cheap gas for American SUVs. The purpose of occupying Iraq is to keep oil contracts from competing economic rivals such as China, Russia and India.

Which hasn't worked since most Iraqi oil is going to exactly the same countries it always has. besides, both China and Russia are large oil and gas producers in their own rights these days. They produce more than the US does.

To reiterate, I am not suggesting that the US military is occupying Iraq so that we can have cheap gas. It's much more important that this oil does not go to economic rivals.

And yet that's were it's going anyway. Asia, europe and Iraq's neighbours

After 9/11 no one dare question the US's right to attack its perceived threats.

So I imagined all the anti war protests in Europe and elsewhere in the world?

[Praktik]

ANy action BUSH and Co may or may not have taken is purely speculation on both sides of the argument. To say he would have taken Saddam out anyway is to speculate that BUSH had thoughts of avenging his Fathers misattempt.

Well, we could look at the work of Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz and the foreign policy tradition of the neocons going back to Wilson and the messianic democratic idealism that's the backdrop of neocon thought.

I agree that its all speculation - but if there was a genie that could set it all back to 2001 - minus 9/11 - I'd be willing to lay serious money that they were gonna go in. These guys are totally cavalier - they had their shot with all three branches under their control, they weren't going to sit on their hands.

I still don't understand this "they did it for Iraq" business. Let's say they were gonna do a "false flag" - all they needed to do was shoot down a civilian airliner and make it look like the Iraqis (or fake a crash), or even just crash a plane and let someone get captured or any number of other things that people would have bought easily as a good reason to invade.

Couldn't they have achieved the motivation of Americans with FAR less risk?

[PhantomWolf]

It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other. We could debate whether the relationship between these two events is strong, possibly it isn't. But the fact is that Iraq was invaded and 9/11 was invoked in the run up to the war. This is not speculation, it's incontestable.

Sorry but it is speculation. Just because something did happen that way doesn't mean that it had to happen that way.

Just because the Iraq invasion follow 9/11 doesn't mean that it needed 9/11 to occur anymore than a picnic in the park needs the sunny day. Sure it certainly helps, but you can still go and have one in the rain if you are determined enough, and Bush was determined to invade Iraq.

[T.A.M.]

It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other. We could debate whether the relationship between these two events is strong, possibly it isn't. But the fact is that Iraq was invaded and 9/11 was invoked in the run up to the war. This is not speculation, it's incontestable.

No, more correctly, after 9/11, the USA invaded Afghanistan. Then an argument that Saddam had WMDs was made, and this resulted in the invasion of Iraq.

Did the "Fear Factor" from 9/11 play a role, yes, but was it NEEDED? That sits in the realm of speculation. the only way to say that it was absolutely needed would be to turn the clocks back, have 9/11 prevented, and then see that no invasion of Iraq in the subsequent years occured...and since that is ridiculous and impossible...speculation.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Well, we could look at the work of Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz and the foreign policy tradition of the neocons going back to Wilson and the messianic democratic idealism that's the backdrop of neocon thought.

I agree that its all speculation - but if there was a genie that could set it all back to 2001 - minus 9/11 - I'd be willing to lay serious money that they were gonna go in. These guys are totally cavalier - they had their shot with all three branches under their control, they weren't going to sit on their hands.

I still don't understand this "they did it for Iraq" business. Let's say they were gonna do a "false flag" - all they needed to do was shoot down a civilian airliner and make it look like the Iraqis (or fake a crash), or even just crash a plane and let someone get captured or any number of other things that people would have bought easily as a good reason to invade.

Couldn't they have achieved the motivation of Americans with FAR less risk?

Well said...and I agree.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

[QUOTE]How do they have access to it now? Iraqi oil is under the ownership of the Iraqi Goverment and the US imports of Iraqi oil, a minute fraction of theor total oil import, has decreased since 2001.

I'm well aware of the decrease in production. This fact strengthens the point that the US occupation is to ensure that the oil is not flowing to economic rivals.

Which hasn't worked since most Iraqi oil is going to exactly the same countries it always has. besides, both China and Russia are large oil and gas producers in their own rights these days. They produce more than the US does.

Please don't hesitate to provide a source. China does not produce more oil than the US.


And yet that's were it's going anyway. Asia, europe and Iraq's neighbours
Barely, as production has dramatically decreased, Iraq has had to actually import petroleum products.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/OilExports.html


So I imagined all the anti war protests in Europe and elsewhere in the world?

When I said no one dare question the US, I was talking about the cowardly leadership around the world, not the brave citizens who protest unprovoked, indefinite war.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other.
so by the same logic i needed 9/11 to get my current job at a software company, since one event did follow the other

[PhantomWolf]

I'm well aware of the decrease in production. This fact strengthens the point that the US occupation is to ensure that the oil is not flowing to economic rivals.

I said the amount the US imports has decreased, not the amount theat Iraq exports, however since you bring that up. In 2002 the UN OIP esimated that Iraq's max sustainable oil export is a little over 2.1 million bpd. In 2006 it was opperating at that rate, but since then had had the northern oil line attacks and closed reducing it to 1.5 million bpd. In 2002 it was exporting only 1.14 million barrels a day. How is this a decrease in production and export?

Please don't hesitate to provide a source. China does not produce more oil than the US.

I didn't say China did, I said "They" did China currently produces about half the amount the US does, but Russia produces more by itself 9.4 million bpd and China is 3.6 million for a total of 14 million bpd compared to the US's 7.6 million. That's nearly twice the US total. Russia produces 10% of the world's oil and 30% of the gas.

Barely, as production has dramatically decreased, Iraq has had to actually import petroleum products.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/OilExports.html

Perhaps you should re-read the article. They are exporting petroleum product not because production has decreased, but due to milista activity against their pipelines resulting in the closure of their main two oil lines. That means they have to ship it out and it's easier to ship out product rather then crude.

When I said no one dare question the US, I was talking about the cowardly leadership around the world, not the brave citizens who protest unprovoked, indefinite war.

You mean except like the French, Germans, Chinese, Russians, the then UN secretary general.... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2938513.stm)

[beachnut]

To be as clear as possible I would say that it is probable members within the US gov't implemented the attacks to create the conditions that would allow the US to not only invade Iraq but create a permanent presence in the middle east, where they didn't have one before.
That is a dumb idea.

[Gravy]

RedIbis thinks the current U.S. administration prefers to spend half a trillion dollars and to lose elections in order to somehow keep U.S. economic rivals from importing Iraqi oil, presumably without those rivals noticing that this was happening.

Truthers are special.

[Belz...]

It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other.

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

If a meteorite strikes the earth after the superbowl, does that mean that the players needed the meteor to come ? I mean, it did follow the other event!!!111

[twinstead]

It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other.

I suppose that also means that Hurricane Katrina was a direct result of 9/11 as well, since it DID follow.

The plot thickens....

[Disbelief]

Red, I am still looking for a response to my post #72. Why are some corporations singled out to make money while others aren't?

[RedIbis]

RedIbis thinks the current U.S. administration prefers to spend half a trillion dollars and to lose elections in order to somehow keep U.S. economic rivals from importing Iraqi oil, presumably without those rivals noticing that this was happening.

Truthers are special.

What do you care what I think? You have the strange habit of throwing your two cents in on a discussion with someone you have on ignore.

And where did this half a trillion go? To defense contractors, and some of it was very poorly managed and "disappeared." And believe me Russia, China and India are well aware of what is happening.

Care to actually get into a reasonable discussion or just take pot shots from the sidelines?

[RedIbis]

Red, I am still looking for a response to my post #72. Why are some corporations singled out to make money while others aren't?

Connections.

[RedIbis]

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

If a meteorite strikes the earth after the superbowl, does that mean that the players needed the meteor to come ? I mean, it did follow the other event!!!111

My point could have been better stated, but I did clarify it and that's what's being overlooked.

9/11 was instrumental in the run up to the war. They were not mutually exclusive events, they were always tied into each other by this administration.

[Disbelief]

Connections.

That is a bit too simplistic for my tastes. At the time, GM was still the largest corporation in the world, but have continued to decline. Ford was still powerful and DC was also big. Look at the hit just this one industry has taken.

[RedIbis]

That is a bit too simplistic for my tastes. At the time, GM was still the largest corporation in the world, but have continued to decline. Ford was still powerful and DC was also big. Look at the hit just this one industry has taken.

How are the defense contractors doing?

[Disbelief]

How are the defense contractors doing?

Which ones?

This still does not answer my question. Why would defense contractors have more pull than the largest corporation in the world? You do realize that the automotive industry is credited with helping keep the US economy from sliding into a recession after 9/11 by offering 0% financing? This move cost them a lot of money and hurt the resale value of the cars, so it was not some big financial boon for them.

[RedIbis]

Which ones?

This still does not answer my question. Why would defense contractors have more pull than the largest corporation in the world? You do realize that the automotive industry is credited with helping keep the US economy from sliding into a recession after 9/11 by offering 0% financing? This move cost them a lot of money and hurt the resale value of the cars, so it was not some big financial boon for them.

Perhaps you're not a resident of the US because you seem to be unaware of the cozy relationship between this administration and the defense industry. I don't remember Cheney being on the board of Ford, for instance.

[RedIbis]

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/clifton.php?articleid=11393

While Congressional Budget Office reports showed a gloomy outlook for US costs in Iraq, last week several of Washington's biggest defense contractors released profit reports disclosing huge growth in divisions benefiting from military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Northrop Grumman's information and services, and electronics divisions showed 15 percent and 7 percent growth, respectively, for the second quarter compared to the same fiscal quarter last year.

General Dynamics' combat systems unit experienced a 19 percent growth in sales due to continued demand for tanks and armored vehicles while Lockheed Martin announced a 34 percent rise in profits to 778 million dollars.

Lockheed's newest revenue projections are now as high as 41.75 billion dollars.

"2008 [military related] appropriations are the highest it's ever been. 2007 was the highest before that. War spending continues to go on. In addition [contractors] are cashing in on increasing military budgets that have nothing to do with the war, such as the F-22 Raptor and large scale weapon systems," Miriam Pemberton, research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS.

"Not only has this recent quarter been profitable, they have now locked in spending that will keep those profits going," she said.

[Disbelief]

Perhaps you're not a resident of the US because you seem to be unaware of the cozy relationship between this administration and the defense industry. I don't remember Cheney being on the board of Ford, for instance.

Of course I am a citizen of the US and am well aware of what is going on. However, you put a blanket statement that it helps corporations. I proved to you that the war has hurt at least one industry that is very important to the US economy - I believe the auto industry is roughly 5% of the US economy. However, you dismiss them as having no pull.

Now, I am asking for specific contractors. You again use a blanket statement that defense contractors are doing great. Guess what, some of them are doing great and some of them were doing just fine before the war. However, you should be more specific about which contractors are doing well so we can compare how they were doing before the war and how they are doing now.

[funk de fino]

When I said no one dare question the US, I was talking about the cowardly leadership around the world, not the brave citizens who protest unprovoked, indefinite war.

How many of the European leaders joined the little crusade with Bush and Blair? Did France not criticise the war, did Germany join in? Did the UN in fact pass a resolution saying that we should invade Iraq and they all merrily proceeded to do so?

Not many of your brave little citizens protesting against the 911 murders are there? Are they cowards as well?

Stay out of the oil discussion you have no idea what you are talking about.

[funk de fino]

Perhaps you're not a resident of the US because you seem to be unaware of the cozy relationship between this administration and the defense industry. I don't remember Cheney being on the board of Ford, for instance.


Cheney was on the board of what Red? What is their main business?

[RedIbis]

Cheney was on the board of what Red? What is their main business?

You told me to stay out of the discussion, now you're asking me questions, so which is it?

[Praktik]

RedIbis -

To say that the profits of the companies you've highlighted are motivation for a self-inflicted 9/11, you need to demonstrate that without 9/11, these companies would not have been making the same amount of profits. This is tough and all speculation, but I don't find that the profits in the MIC since 9/11 to be a convincing argument.

As I've said above, Lockheed, Boeing, G+E, Halliburton and so on - all these companies would have been doing great under Bush, even if 9/11 didn't happen. Defense spending has been on a steady upward curve for a long, long time. And with the Republicans in control of all three branches (the best friends of these entities), it was pretty much a sure bet that procurement would be on the upswing. There doesn't have to be a war going on to shoot a few billion on a new weapons system.

Further, America's bases all around the world need services - food, laundry, and many other functions, Halliburton and their subsidiary Brown + Root and companies like that were gonna get a nice slice of that pie for sure.

And as others have mentioned, Iraq was very likely to happen even without 9/11 - resulting in the same increase in expenditures that you mention.

All in all, I'm just not convinced by this line of reasoning - I think all the companies you mentioned would have been doing just fine - without the major uncertainty in the airlines and consumer confidence that _were_ a direct result of 9/11.

[SDC]

It's not speculation to say that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq because one event did follow the other. We could debate whether the relationship between these two events is strong, possibly it isn't. But the fact is that Iraq was invaded and 9/11 was invoked in the run up to the war. This is not speculation, it's incontestable.

My bolding. My chance to trot out my high school Latin.

What what? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[RedIbis]

My bolding. My chance to trot out my high school Latin.

What what? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Post #100

[RedIbis]

RedIbis -

To say that the profits of the companies you've highlighted are motivation for a self-inflicted 9/11, you need to demonstrate that without 9/11, these companies would not have been making the same amount of profits. This is tough and all speculation, but I don't find that the profits in the MIC since 9/11 to be a convincing argument.

As I've said above, Lockheed, Boeing, G+E, Halliburton and so on - all these companies would have been doing great under Bush, even if 9/11 didn't happen. Defense spending has been on a steady upward curve for a long, long time. And with the Republicans in control of all three branches (the best friends of these entities), it was pretty much a sure bet that procurement would be on the upswing. There doesn't have to be a war going on to shoot a few billion on a new weapons system.

Further, America's bases all around the world need services - food, laundry, and many other functions, Halliburton and their subsidiary Brown + Root and companies like that were gonna get a nice slice of that pie for sure.

And as others have mentioned, Iraq was very likely to happen even without 9/11 - resulting in the same increase in expenditures that you mention.

All in all, I'm just not convinced by this line of reasoning - I think all the companies you mentioned would have been doing just fine - without the major uncertainty in the airlines and consumer confidence that _were_ a direct result of 9/11.


Please take another look at the quotes from the article I linked to. It's quite clear what kind of profits are being enjoyed during the occupation of Iraq.

It's impossible to say if their profits would have soared without 9/11. The fact is they did. It's also a fact that Bush used 9/11 at every possible opportunity to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[Belz...]

My point could have been better stated, but I did clarify it and that's what's being overlooked.

9/11 was instrumental in the run up to the war. They were not mutually exclusive events, they were always tied into each other by this administration.

Ah! So what we REALLY have here is a non sequitur. I thought so.

[Praktik]

Please take another look at the quotes from the article I linked to. It's quite clear what kind of profits are being enjoyed during the occupation of Iraq.

It's impossible to say if their profits would have soared without 9/11. The fact is they did. It's also a fact that Bush used 9/11 at every possible opportunity to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.


I don't think its "impossible" to say that their profits would have soared without 9/11. Are you suggesting that the Republican Congress and Bush would have been tight with the purse-strings w/o 9/11?

You pointed out how close the relationship is between those companies and the Repub's in power yourself, and I agree with that.

Isn't it fair to say that those relationships would have resulted in a nice tidy pile for all involved regardless of what was going to happen?

I don't need to click your link - I'm well aware of who is making money in Iraq..:)

EDIT: and you didn't address the premise mentioned here by more than a few people, that Iraq was likely to happen even w/o 9/11. It would have been easy to manufacture an excuse to go in - with FAR less risk than an operation like 9/11. Start flying over anti-aircraft sites and hope Saddam gets lucky..;)

[SDC]

Ah! So what we REALLY have here is a non sequitur. I thought so.

Nuts. Well, at least it's Latin.

[RedIbis]

I don't think its "impossible" to say that their profits would have soared without 9/11. Are you suggesting that the Republican Congress and Bush would have been tight with the purse-strings w/o 9/11?

Definitely not tight, but it would have been very difficult to carry on the type of war profiteering that is currently going on. Do we agree on this?

You pointed out how close the relationship is between those companies and the Repub's in power yourself, and I agree with that.

Excellent.

Isn't it fair to say that those relationships would have resulted in a nice tidy pile for all involved regardless of what was going to happen?

Yes, it is fair, but we're not talking about a "nice tidy pile" we're talking about unprecedented profits. Some analyses are projecting costs upwards of 2 trillion over the course of this "war."

I don't need to click your link - I'm well aware of who is making money in Iraq..:)

It's not who's making money, it's about their rise in profits. Extraordinary gains that would make any CEO salivate. That's an ominous smilie, if one is possible.

EDIT: and you didn't address the premise mentioned here by more than a few people, that Iraq was likely to happen even w/o 9/11. It would have been easy to manufacture an excuse to go in - with FAR less risk than an operation like 9/11. Start flying over anti-aircraft sites and hope Saddam gets lucky..;)

I most certainly did address this when TAM asked.

[Disbelief]

Perhaps you're not a resident of the US because you seem to be unaware of the cozy relationship between this administration and the defense industry. I don't remember Cheney being on the board of Ford, for instance.

Red, I almost forgot. Remember Andrew Card, Bush's Chief of Staff, who whispered in his ear at the elementary school? He was a GM executive.

[RedIbis]

Red, I almost forgot. Remember Andrew Card, Bush's Chief of Staff, who whispered in his ear at the elementary school? He was a GM executive.

Of course I do. In fact, I think Bush in Booker is a fascinating topic that deserves at least a thread of its own.

[Disbelief]

Of course I do. In fact, I think Bush in Booker is a fascinating topic that deserves at least a thread of its own.

So, you say that Cheney had enough sway to help the US do 9/11 to help his former company, yet Card had no sway to help not only his former company, but also former industry?

[RedIbis]

So, you say that Cheney had enough sway to help the US do 9/11 to help his former company, yet Card had no sway to help not only his former company, but also former industry?

Cheney is arguably the most powerful VP in history.

Unless I'm mistaken Card isn't even in the administration any longer.

[Disbelief]

Cheney is arguably the most powerful VP in history.

Unless I'm mistaken Card isn't even in the administration any longer.

Gotcha. Since he serves your purposes, you will cherry pick Cheney and ignore anyone else, no matter his connection to Bush. So much easier if you just come out and say so.

Crad is no longer with the administration, but that would have nothing to do with 9/11. He left in 2006 (I believe), but didn't he head a group on Iraq for Bush?

[Swing Dangler]

You are seriouisly proving that like Americans you have zero understanding of the Islamic Jihadi's mind. Their goal isn't based on one or two or even five years. OBL is a vetern of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He's doing to the US exactly what he saw done to the Soviets, drawing them into a expensive war they can't win and then just bleed them dry till they bankrupt themselves. He knew that they wouldn't win in one strike, but that by taking time and playing the US he can destroy them finacially. Without their money machine they can't support their overseas bases or Israel, that removes their support for Israel and their Middle Eastern bases. At that point they have the freedom to take control of the war torn countries exactly like the Taliban did in Afghanistan, unite them under one banner and destroy Israel.



You think that he didn't get anything out of it? He got exactly what he wanted out of it, dead Americans and more dying every day all while the US burns its money and its war machine to the ground. OBL is laughing at the US and bidding his time as he watches them head down exactly the same path as the Soviet Union did 30 years ago.

Can you provide any iota of a source for your speculation?

Can you offer any evidence of OBL's goals, motivations, or reasons for 9/11?

So for the record, your stating we can't win the war in Iraq? Or are you suggesting that is what OBL is stating, if so, source please?

[Praktik]

^^^

For starters Swing Dangler, the US is pulling its bases out of Saudi Arabia - a key Al Qaeda and OBL demand.

What do you think about my thoughts on their motivations previously in the thread here?

[Corsair 115]

I'm well aware of the decrease in production. This fact strengthens the point that the US occupation is to ensure that the oil is not flowing to economic rivals. In terms of the number of barrels of oil imported into the U.S. from Iraq, it was 30% less in 2006 than it was in 2001. Note that this is in spite of U.S. imports of crude oil being 8% higher. I'm not at my regular computer so I don't have the exact figures handy, but I can post them later on.

Canada is steadily providing more and more of U.S. crude oil imports. It's causing quite the economic boom in Alberta, and has been a major contributor to the recent rise of the Canadian dollar against the American. In 2006 Canada was the #1 source for U.S. crude oil imports; Mexico was #2. Together those two nations provided one-third of all U.S. oil imports.

[Belz...]

Yes, it is fair, but we're not talking about a "nice tidy pile" we're talking about unprecedented profits. Some analyses are projecting costs upwards of 2 trillion over the course of this "war."

And weeeeee're back at working backwards from a conclusion.

[Swing Dangler]

^^^

For starters Swing Dangler, the US is pulling its bases out of Saudi Arabia - a key Al Qaeda and OBL demand.

What do you think about my thoughts on their motivations previously in the thread here?

Can you provide a source for the withdrawl, please? Thanks!

As for the other points, can you prove that Congress would have increased defense spending without 9/11 and I'm hesitant to say it but without Iraq? I only state that because the Administration wanted to take care of OBL and SH as a response to 9/11, hence the inclusion.

[Praktik]

Here's the story announcing the pullout from 2003 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml).

And I meant the post I wrote about the goals and motivations of OBL and Al Qaeda - and how 9/11 furthered those goals, not the funding.

I could look that stuff up but its just intuitively obvious that the friends of whomever is in power benefit - when Republicans are in its Pharma, Energy and Defense, when the Dems are in its Pharma, Finance and so on. Knowing how closely linked the Repub's are to defense contractors (Cheney especially) it was clear that whatever the scenario, they were gonna get a nice slice of the pie.

[LastChild]

OK chaps; let's put aside all the complicated physics, engineering and associated maths for a moment. Let's avoid getting down into the weeds and wrangling about whether or not steel burns hot enough to cause missiles to be fired at WTC7 making it drop Loose Change into Dylan Avery's footprint at free-fall speeds - or whatever the latest 'smoking gun' is. I have one question which requires complete detachment from all the niggly little coincedences and 'evidence' of an 'inside job', and instead requires a look at the BIG picture.

My question has been asked many times before, but the discussion always seems to descend back into the weeds and people start arguing over building construction details and NIST reports and physics. If you take this one on, my inquisitive little friends, all I require you to do is to answer simple, direct questions, with no pesky maths, physics or fancy book learnin' to confuse you.

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.

Not necessarily the US Government and not necessarily only about oil but …

To increase defense spending significantly to carry out global
agendas and to put money in the pockets of military contractor fat cats;

To facilitate an excuse to challenge foreign nations and steal their natural resources;

To promote the cause of political and economic policies advantageous to their greed;

To assume a false responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order seemingly friendly to security, prosperity, and principles while actually using it take away the rights and freedoms of many.

To promote a Reaganite myth of military strength and moral clarity necessary for the Military Industrial Complex to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure its choke hold on America and the rest of the world into the next.

[LastChild]

President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[funk de fino]

Yes, it is fair, but we're not talking about a "nice tidy pile" we're talking about unprecedented profits. Some analyses are projecting costs upwards of 2 trillion over the course of this "war."

It's not who's making money, it's about their rise in profits. Extraordinary gains that would make any CEO salivate. That's an ominous smilie, if one is possible.

.

Show me again the huge profits that the KBR division of Halliburton made from Iraq so far.

They were pretty poor I'm afraid.

So bad and with so much bad press Halliburton have dumped them

[LastChild]

Well here is one article and a recent one at that...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/bc.apfn.earns.kbr.ap/index.htm

KBR profit soars on Iraq work
The contractor will emphasize industrial construction as troop levels in the war-torn country are reduced: CEO.
November 1 2007: 9:13 AM EDT

HOUSTON (AP) -- KBR, the former Halliburton Co. subsidiary, said Thursday its third-quarter profit surged on Iraq-related work, a gain on the sale of interest in a spa joint venture in Algeria and comparison with year-ago results hurt by a hefty charge.

But let us humor this ridiculous argument for a second and entertain the asinine notion that military contractors in general have gained nothing from a war that was launched off the back of 9/11.

Would that mean they thought that way before 9/11? For example there are plenty of people sitting in jail for committing murders where before they committed the murder it seemed like a good idea to them. Just because it didn't work out the way they planned it doesn't make them any less guilty.

[Good Lt]

the former Halliburton Co. subsidiary,

Former?

So Halliburton dumped them? Why?

[anticonspiracy911]

OK chaps; let's put aside all the complicated physics, engineering and associated maths for a moment. Let's avoid getting down into the weeds and wrangling about whether or not steel burns hot enough to cause missiles to be fired at WTC7 making it drop Loose Change into Dylan Avery's footprint at free-fall speeds - or whatever the latest 'smoking gun' is. I have one question which requires complete detachment from all the niggly little coincedences and 'evidence' of an 'inside job', and instead requires a look at the BIG picture.

My question has been asked many times before, but the discussion always seems to descend back into the weeds and people start arguing over building construction details and NIST reports and physics. If you take this one on, my inquisitive little friends, all I require you to do is to answer simple, direct questions, with no pesky maths, physics or fancy book learnin' to confuse you.

My question is simply this:

What do you think the American Government had to gain by destroying the World Trade Center and killing over 3000 US citizens on 9/11?

I ask this because one of the more popular answers seems to be 'oil', and what with crude oil prices hitting all-time highs lately, I was genuinely interested in what you now think the reason could be for an 'inside job'.


The better question would be, if it was such a complicated conspiracy then how come they didn't set up WMD's in Iraq? Surely they would be competent enough to pull off such a thing considering they went undetected inside the securest buildings in all of America. Why set up a conspiracy to gain you popularity only to not only lose face, but to have people protest for your impeachment?

[Good Lt]

From that article you cited:

KBR said operating income at its government and infrastructure arm was $59 million in the third quarter, up from $55 million a year ago. Results were lifted in part by Iraq-related work.


In late September, Utt said the company, whose work for the U.S. military in Iraq has prompted congressional inquiries, plans to place greater emphasis on domestic industrial construction and other parts of its business.


Despite the uptick in war-related earnings in the July-September period, Utt has acknowledged KBR is likely to perform less work in Iraq in coming quarters as troop levels decrease. KBR provides food, laundry and other support services for U.S. personnel.


As such, KBR will focus on getting back to its roots, looking to land more industrial construction and other projects.


Third-quarter operating income at KBR's energy and chemicals segment was $46 million in the quarter, essentially flat from the year-ago period.

KBR has announced several new contracts in the past several months, both in the U.S. and overseas, where it currently does 75 percent to 80 percent of its business.


You know, this certainly doesn't fit the characterization you Troofers are giving KBR. That is, a war-profiteering carpetbagging company owned by Dick Cheney's former company striving solely to milk the situation in Iraq and focusing solely on making money off the war, as it were.

Reading comp, and all that.

[LastChild]

The better question would be, if it was such a complicated conspiracy then how come they didn't set up WMD's in Iraq? Surely they would be competent enough to pull off such a thing considering they went undetected inside the securest buildings in all of America. Why set up a conspiracy to gain you popularity only to not only lose face, but to have people protest for your impeachment?

Some claim they did try but in the end did they have to? What haven't they accomplished? It certainly hasn’t discouraged them from making the same claims about Iran. It’s like a broken record.

[Good Lt]

Some claim they did try but in the end did they have to?Who claimed this?

Also, care to revise your characterization of KBR?

[LastChild]

Who claimed this?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9

Also, care to revise your characterization of KBR?

Care to revise exactly what? I read the article I posted it. Now did you? What's the title of that article and what question did I post it in response to?

Now back it up. Are you claiming there are no profits being made on this war?

Yes or no?

[beachnut]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9



Care to revise exactly what? I read the article I posted it. Now did you? What's the title of that article and what question did I post it in response to?

Now back it up. Are you claiming there are no profits being made on this war?

Yes or no?
Your sources suck.

[Good Lt]

Beachnut's right, LastChild.

I found the same bunk about this "whistleblower" in the American Free Press (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Bank_Heist.html).

The white supremacists sure seem interested.

From that article you cited from an obscure Pakistani newspaper (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9):According to Al Martin Raw.com, “the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others”.

So THAT'S how it works, huh?

Googling "Nelda Rogers" gives a whole bunch of whacko indymedia, underground, DailyKos and other far-left websites, but nothing substantial or maintstream.

You'd think this would have been a bigger deal if true. But is wasn't. Because it's obviously bunk.

[Good Lt]

Now back it up. Are you claiming there are no profits being made on this war? Wrong. You don't read much, do you?

I'm claiming that you're purposely inflating the rhetoric and certainly the extent to which any one company is 'profiting from the war' as their primary goal (many of whom are Iraqi citizens).

The company you selected is drawing down it's services in Iraq and does most of its business elsewhere in the world and in the US. And Halliburton got rid of it because it was a money-pit.

Do you even read articles past the headlines?

[LastChild]

Wrong. You don't read much, do you?

I'm claiming that you're purposely inflating the rhetoric and certainly the extent to which any one company is 'profiting from the war' as their primary goal (many of whom are Iraqi citizens).

The company you selected is drawing down it's services in Iraq and does most of its business elsewhere in the world and in the US. And Halliburton got rid of it because it was a money-pit.

Do you even read articles past the headlines?

Drawing down? It's 2007 what's your point? Did KBR take no bid contracts in Iraq because they don't make money on war? Comparing their profits from one year to the next during the course of the war proves what?

[Good Lt]

What percentage of their profits are "from the war?" Sources?

Like, for example, there are passages from that article you cited like this:

KBR said operating income at its government and infrastructure arm was $59 million in the third quarter, up from $55 million a year ago. Results were lifted in part by Iraq-related work.That's an uptick of 4 million in one year. Not exactly massive or even truly noteworthy.

And not even all of that amount, according to the article, was "from the war."

So - care to revise you accusations of :

To increase defense spending significantly to carry out global
agendas and to put money in the pockets of military contractor fat cats;

To facilitate an excuse to challenge foreign nations and steal their natural resources;

To promote the cause of political and economic policies advantageous to their greed;

As with many things Troofers claim, their representations of 'reality' bear little resemblance to reality.

QED.

[pomeroo]

Not necessarily the US Government and not necessarily only about oil but …

To increase defense spending significantly to carry out global
agendas and to put money in the pockets of military contractor fat cats;

To facilitate an excuse to challenge foreign nations and steal their natural resources;




Please demonstrate that the U.S. has "stolen" natural resources from a sovereign state. The rest of your post is puerile blather.

[LastChild]

What percentage of their profits are "from the war?" Sources?

Like, for example, there are passages from that article you cited like this:



That's an uptick of 4 million in one year. Not exactly massive or even truly noteworthy.

And not even all of that amount, according to the article, was "from the war."

So - care to revise you accusations of :



It's not exactly looking like that's happening.

QED.

Answer the question. Did they take a no bid contract because they don't make money on war?

[beachnut]

Answer the question. Did they take a no bid contract because they don't make money on war?
This is better for the Political sub forum. Your tripe would be better there.

[Good Lt]

Did they take a no bid contract because they don't make money on war?

I can't speak for them - maybe you should ask them yourself.

So, ultimately, it's up to you to tell us. Forgetting that you ignored the parts of that article you cited which refuted your hyperbole with facts, you obviously think you have the answer to your own questions.

Now it's your turn:

Was 9-11 an inside job?

Straight answer - yes or no.

Was 9-11 an inside job?

[funk de fino]

Drawing down? It's 2007 what's your point? Did KBR take no bid contracts in Iraq because they don't make money on war? Comparing their profits from one year to the next during the course of the war proves what?

as I thought you have no idea about KBR profits.

Their past financials are very easily found. Do you think for a huge company like Halliburton that 3.6% profits pre costs and tax are huge and unprecedented?

They lost money on a lot of the contracts, try looking at 2004/5 financials to see how KBR was dragging down the rest of the Halliburton Corp and were swiftly dumped.

[funk de fino]

Answer the question. Did they take a no bid contract because they don't make money on war?

They thought they would make more than they did. Someone has to do it. This is the goal of all firms not just firms Cheney used to be involved in.

The claim was huge and unprecedented profits from the war and the claims are false. You do know the difference between revenue and profit?

You do know the reason the Halliburton Corp overall have had great financials in recent years dont you?