Question to truthers

[The Platypus]

Well I can answer this several ways. First of all I believe all of the "terrorist acts" "they hate us" jargon, was and certainly now is greatly over hyped. If I believe 9/11 was a false flag, it is certainly not to much of stretch to believe other events were false flags as well. But of course that's not to say that these religious fanatics did not commit any terrorist act. I would never say such a thing. But I believe it is over-done, and some events in the past could be false flag events.

Next while some of these fanatics may have wanted to do this, I don't believe they had the means. Now I know what you are thinking, 19 men some box cutters, that's not really a lot of resources. But think about it, we're talking about a loose group of people that to be planning this for years. They had to go to flight training, figure out A/C security, stay close knit enough that no one would give the plans away. Seems hard for a group that is very loosely connected.

Finally and what I believe is most important, almost all horrible acts in history, committed on a big scale, were about greed and power. Now I know you can say, there's been a lot of wars fought over Religion, and there still are. But I believe that religion is only being used to brainwash individuals to fighting these wars, for the leaders of these people to gain wealth and power. If it wasn't Religion they would be brainwashed by something else. If the official story were true, what did it get them? How would the people who organized be any better off? For me it makes sense that humans have not changed and that this event was done by those who wanted more wealth and power. Which is what we see every day, a police state is closing in our rights are being stripped. 9/11 was used a pre-text to all of this.

So basically, you've bought into the old "oh the tyranny" game. Police state, losing our rights, blah blah yadda yadda. That's the BS the cult hooked you with, they got you that easily... sad.

If you think 9/11 was some pre-text to some imagined police state, then you clearly aren't very old and have very little understanding about the real world. Because various cults and kooks have been playing the police state, taking our rights, tyranny game long, long before 911.

 

[beachnut]

Exactly the same for me. Only the gullible or those in denial could see wtc7 fall and think its a fire induced collapse.

Your ignorance of physics, fire, fire fighting, engineering is why you can't comprehend fire did it. ... your post is false, based on your lack of knowledge in many fields.

It becomes easy to understand 19 terrorists did 911 after doing reserach.
UBL said he would kill us when he could... easy to find
19 terrorists signed up to fly, we have their "names", like when you flew before 911, we would take your name, your money, and if you did not return from the flight, we had a record of who flew! funny how easy it was to sort out who was the terrorist on each flight, their loved ones never showed up to collect the insurance settlement! You are gullible due to poor research, and , oops can't tell you the truth.

The crews on the planes told on the bad guys! We have the bad guys on 93's CVR. We have the bad guys on ATC tapes, they keyed the wrong button when trying to talk to the passengers.

911 was almost as easy as catching McVeigh by accident. The terrorists did it, and they were dead, leaving a big path to follow, they did not hide, they left their rental cars, their rooms, etc, and never returned.

Your failed claims are based on your personal lack of knowledge. You have no evidence, you have ignorance. You have no experience or knowledge to make a rational conclusion. If you did you would be famous for breaking the biggest story in history. Instead, you don't nothing and post lies based on your failed opinions, lies and fantasy; but you think you have substance. Like an illusion, you don't have a clue you are wrong. Zero evidence, no clues, 10 years of failure. What will you do for an encore?

 

[bill smith]

When the Soviet Union ceased to be a credible military threat to the US the arms manufactucturers and their legion spin-offs were looking at a much bleaker future in terms of highly lucrative weapons and equipment sales. All intelligence agencies were going yo have huge budget cuts. All branches of the military faced layoffs, downsizing and mothballing of existing equipment.

So a new Global enemy was needed to pump up the deflating need for a huge military-industrial complex again.

Enter Al-Quaeda , the ragged band of Afghani bandits who would become the new (if largely invisible) global enemy requiring the allocation of possibly even greater amounts than ever of taxpayer money to fight. Arriving just on time fill the role left vacant by the USSR.

This way of looking at it is called 'pro bono' (who gains) or, if you like 'follow the money' and is one of the strongest reasons that I believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Oystein]

The firefighters were told that WTC7 was going to come down.

Many firefighters disagree that WTC7 should have collapsed and have joined Firefighters for 9/11 Truth to voice their contrary opinion.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Do you think they are being deceptive?

MM

Anyone from New York who was there that day and actually saw and assessed the burning building, by any chance?

 

[Harpo]

Blah...Blah...Blah

Enter Al-Quaeda , the ragged band of Afghani bandits

Incorrect. You're thinking of the Afghan Mujahadeen (the clue is in the name) which is a different organisation from Al-Qaeda.

who would become the new (if largely invisible) global enemy requiring the allocation of possibly even greater amounts than ever of taxpayer money to fight. Arriving just on time fill the role left vacant by the USSR.

Weren't the September 11th attacks and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan 12 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union?

Interesting definition of "just on (sic) time" you have there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union

This way of looking at it is called 'pro bono' (who gains) or, if you like 'follow the money' and is one of the strongest reasons that I believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Pro Bono doesn't mean "who gains".

It's a shortened version of the phrase Pro Bono Publico which means "For the public good".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono

That was piss poor even by your (very) low standards Bill.

 

[Oystein]

Well I can answer this several ways. First of all I believe all of the "terrorist acts" "they hate us" jargon, was and certainly now is greatly over hyped.

I agree that the "they hate our freedom" is overhyped and misses the core motivation of terrorists. I expect though that terrorists at least hate something about those they target. Wouldn't you? Or what is your general assumption about what emotions motivate terrorists? Love of something maybe?

If I believe 9/11 was a false flag, it is certainly not to much of stretch to believe other events were false flags as well.

Yes. If.
Since 9/11 wasn't a false flag, you at least lose that certainty.

But of course that's not to say that these religious fanatics did not commit any terrorist act. I would never say such a thing.

Would you say positively that religious fanatics did commite some terrorist acts? How about fanatic muslims (just to pre-empt a dodge of the sort "isn't Bush a religious fanatic")?

But I believe it is over-done, and some events in the past could be false flag events.

Could. But let me guess: You don't know any examples of terrorist acts that definitely were? How about more specifically terrorist acts by fanatic muslims?

Next while some of these fanatics may have wanted to do this, I don't believe they had the means. Now I know what you are thinking, 19 men some box cutters, that's not really a lot of resources. But think about it, we're talking about a loose group of people that to be planning this for years. They had to go to flight training, figure out A/C security, ...

I may have missed something from the 9/11 Commission report, but - why do you say they had to "figure out A/C security"? Can you please say specifically which measures of A/C security they had to figure out and devise workarounds for to successfully carry out their plot? And how you know that?

...stay close knit enough that no one would give the plans away. Seems hard for a group that is very loosely connected.

Seems hard to you that 19 (well, add a handful of helpers here: KSM, OBL, Binhalshib, Moussaoui...) conspirators could keep a secret for a couple of years?
Cool.
So instead you think it is more likley that at least several thousand of co-consoirators even more loosely connected to each other (the missile guys have no natural connection to the Air Traffic Controllers, the airline maintenance guys nothing with the coroners and DNA specialists, the NTSB nothing with NIST...) can keep a secret for over 10 years??

Finally and what I believe is most important, almost all horrible acts in history, committed on a big scale, were about greed and power.

Absolutely. Yes.

Now I know you can say, there's been a lot of wars fought over Religion, and there still are. But I believe that religion is only being used to brainwash individuals to fighting these wars, for the leaders of these people to gain wealth and power. If it wasn't Religion they would be brainwashed by something else.

Well, maybe. I don't think everyone agrees with this, but probably this idea has some traction here at the JREF.
So?

If the official story were true, what did it get them? How would the people who organized be any better off? For me it makes sense that humans have not changed and that this event was done by those who wanted more wealth and power. Which is what we see every day, a police state is closing in our rights are being stripped. 9/11 was used a pre-text to all of this.

I agree with you that AQ doesn't seem to have achieved much of substance, and also that this sort of attack wasn't even likely to give them significant gains in terms of power, wealth, or political progress.
But I have something for you to ponder:

I read an interesting article a while ago "What Terrorists Really Want" by Max Abrahams, who (in 2008, when the article was written) was a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California. The author challenges the conventional theory that terrorists are rational actors who take to violence against civilians as a means of last resort to address political grievances. He notes that terrorists rarely acieve their stated goals, do not have a stable set of political goals but rather evolve over time, rarely abandon terrorism when their goals have been met, or when non-violent means of achieving them become feasible.
Terrorist on the other hand are not irrational.
Instead, he proposes, their real motivation is not a political agenda, but status among fellow terrorist, to "develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists".
These 19 men and their backoffice certainly achieved that goal, and how! Al Qaida has rapidly stepped from relative obscurity into the limelight of a world-famous brand name.

Now, no one has to buy this theory, and I am not sure I fully agree with Abrahams, but I do think he is onto something! In particular, the expectation that terrorists truly want to wrest political goals (power increase would fall under that scope of "political") from their victims is dubious.

 

[bill smith]

Incorrect. You're thinking of the Afghan Mujahadeen (the clue is in the name) which is a different organisation from Al-Qaeda.



Weren't the September 11th attacks and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan 12 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union?

Interesting definition of "just on (sic) time" you have there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union



Pro Bono doesn't mean "who gains".

It's a shortened version of the phrase Pro Bono Publico which means "For the public good".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono

That was piss poor even by your (very) low standards Bill.

Oops. I meant 'Cui Bono' of course.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Oops. I meant 'Cui Bono' of course.

of course you did

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes. If.
Since 9/11 wasn't a false flag, you at least lose that certainty.

I was saying I believe 9/11 was a false flag, I certainly have no problem believing others were as well.

Would you say positively that religious fanatics did commite some terrorist acts? How about fanatic muslims (just to pre-empt a dodge of the sort "isn't Bush a religious fanatic")?

Yes I've already said so. But I will also say that they view it as self defense. They view themselves as occupied, and are fighting back. Whether this is true or not, is not that important, they view themselves like this, and are not doing these acts to spread "terror"

Could. But let me guess: You don't know any examples of terrorist acts that definitely were? How about more specifically terrorist acts by fanatic muslims?

Actually I know of an example, where the perps actually got caught. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Please save the usual responses to examples like this. You asked a specific question I am giving a specific answer.

I may have missed something from the 9/11 Commission report, but - why do you say they had to "figure out A/C security"? Can you please say specifically which measures of A/C security they had to figure out and devise workarounds for to successfully carry out their plot? And how you know that?

I just meant in general there is a lot of planning involved. They didn't just wake up September 11th and say "hey why don't we crash some planes" Where did the funding come from? Sure OBL was rich but most of his money he was cut off from him. It seems very difficult for me to believe a group of loosely based people could pull this off.

Seems hard to you that 19 (well, add a handful of helpers here: KSM, OBL, Binhalshib, Moussaoui...) conspirators could keep a secret for a couple of years?
Cool.
So instead you think it is more likley that at least several thousand of co-consoirators even more loosely connected to each other (the missile guys have no natural connection to the Air Traffic Controllers, the airline maintenance guys nothing with the coroners and DNA specialists, the NTSB nothing with NIST...) can keep a secret for over 10 years??

This is where I disagree, if there was a conspiracy, the people that did this were very closely connected, and very exclusive. It's quite probable that those parts that the conspirators could not directly control (i.e needed help for), they were able to use or, for lack of a better word, "trick" people into helping them. In some cases those helping them may have had no idea they were doing so, in other cases they may not have known the full extent.

Absolutely. Yes.

Well, maybe. I don't think everyone agrees with this, but probably this idea has some traction here at the JREF.
So?

Was simply saying people could use this as an example of something horrible happening, for reasons other than greed and power.
I also want to add I am not against religion, in fact I consider myself religious, but doesn't mean I can't see religion is being used for bad purposes. This includes my own religion.

I agree with you that AQ doesn't seem to have achieved much of substance, and also that this sort of attack wasn't even likely to give them significant gains in terms of power, wealth, or political progress.
But I have something for you to ponder:

I read an interesting article a while ago "What Terrorists Really Want" by Max Abrahams, who (in 2008, when the article was written) was a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California. The author challenges the conventional theory that terrorists are rational actors who take to violence against civilians as a means of last resort to address political grievances. He notes that terrorists rarely acieve their stated goals, do not have a stable set of political goals but rather evolve over time, rarely abandon terrorism when their goals have been met, or when non-violent means of achieving them become feasible.
Terrorist on the other hand are not irrational.
Instead, he proposes, their real motivation is not a political agenda, but status among fellow terrorist, to "develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists".
These 19 men and their backoffice certainly achieved that goal, and how! Al Qaida has rapidly stepped from relative obscurity into the limelight of a world-famous brand name.

Now, no one has to buy this theory, and I am not sure I fully agree with Abrahams, but I do think he is onto something! In particular, the expectation that terrorists truly want to wrest political goals (power increase would fall under that scope of "political") from their victims is dubious.

Well I would disagree with this on many levels. I really don't even know what their "goal" would have been. They seem intent on getting the U.S and the west in general out of the affairs of the middle east. So I guess one can argue, that given the U.S's history of not responding to attacks, the hope would have been, that the U.S. would say enough is enough and stay out once and for all. But to me this doesn't make much sense. First of all nothing like that was done before, especially not on U.S. soil. Any rational person would think there would be a response. I mean I remember in the days right after the attack, random Muslims were beat up for no reason, any rational person would reason that there would a response to it. Something they clearly would not want. AQ certainly did not (and would not have expected) to gain any wealth from the event. I suppose in a respect they would gain power, but it would be abstract, in the sense of fear. I think at some point in the planning of the operation someone would have said "you know why are we doing this? It's of no benefit to us." That would have the end of it. Which is why I believe this was done, by people who simply wanted more wealth, more power, more control, as has been the case all-through out history.

 

[bill smith]

Wow tmd. that is really interesting about Operation Layon. I never heard about it before. Interesting how Israeli military intelligence kept it out of the media in Israel.

 

[Sabretooth]

Wow tmd. that is really interesting about Operation Layon. I never heard about it before. Interesting how Israeli military intelligence kept it out of the media in Israel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I was saying I believe 9/11 was a false flag, I certainly have no problem believing others were as well.

Believe without proof is worthless.

Yes I've already said so. But I will also say that they view it as self defense. They view themselves as occupied, and are fighting back. Whether this is true or not, is not that important, they view themselves like this, and are not doing these acts to spread "terror"

So how is killing 3000 people on 911, "fighting back" Its like fighting back against a wasp sting by poking their nest with a stick!


Actually I know of an example, where the perps actually got caught. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Please save the usual responses to examples like this. You asked a specific question I am giving a specific answer.

Those were Israelis who were involved in a life of death struggle for their very existence at the time not long after half their people had died in gas chambers........one was injured or even intended to be injured although in setting a fire one can never be sure of that) and was carried out in a foreign country (Egypt) that they were at war with at the time.
It was a tiny and incompetent plot, orders of magnitude smaller than what twoofers claim for 911.

I just meant in general there is a lot of planning involved. They didn't just wake up September 11th and say "hey why don't we crash some planes" Where did the funding come from? Sure OBL was rich but most of his money he was cut off from him. It seems very difficult for me to believe a group of loosely based people could pull this off.

Strange, I find it easy to understand. I plan more complex stuff in my job.

This is where I disagree, if there was a conspiracy, the people that did this were very closely connected, and very exclusive.

why? only four needed training and since training of foreigners to fly is common in the West there was no difficulty there and the money invoved was tiny compared to the resources they had. The "muscle" were flown in and had nothing complex to do.

It's quite probable that those parts that the conspirators could not directly control (i.e needed help for), they were able to use or, for lack of a better word, "trick" people into helping them.

Why trick? there is no law against learning to fly an airliner. all you needed was ability and money.

In some cases those helping them may have had no idea they were doing so, in other cases they may not have known the full extent.

And why would they still be quiet now????

Was simply saying people could use this as an example of something horrible happening, for reasons other than greed and power.

of course we can add insanity, revenge etc etc etc.

I also want to add I am not against religion, in fact I consider myself religious, but doesn't mean I can't see religion is being used for bad purposes. This includes my own religion.

No surprise there........once you accept one silly tale others are easier to swallow.

Well I would disagree with this on many levels. I really don't even know what their "goal" would have been. They seem intent on getting the U.S and the west in general out of the affairs of the middle east. So I guess one can argue, that given the U.S's history of not responding to attacks, the hope would have been, that the U.S. would say enough is enough and stay out once and for all. But to me this doesn't make much sense. First of all nothing like that was done before, especially not on U.S. soil. Any rational person would think there would be a response.

The Japanese made the same mistake at Pearl Harbor, and indeed FDR made the same mistake when he cut of Japans Oil. People often underestimate their enemies.....we underestimated Osama and he underestimated the USA.

I mean I remember in the days right after the attack, random Muslims were beat up for no reason, any rational person would reason that there would a response to it

.

Assumes anyone who would fly an airliner into an office building was rational........

Something they clearly would not want. AQ certainly did not (and would not have expected) to gain any wealth from the event.

Not so, they may have thought, well we beat the Russians, we can beat the Americans too and end up more powerful (and wealthy)

I suppose in a respect they would gain power, but it would be abstract, in the sense of fear. I think at some point in the planning of the operation someone would have been said "you know why are we doing this? It's of no benefit to us." That would have the end of it. Which is why I believe this was done, by people who simply wanted more wealth, more power, more control, as has been the case all-through out history.

maybe they thought if we start a religious war we will win because "god" is on our side......certainly its not the first time that has been done.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Wow tmd. that is really interesting about Operation Layon. I never heard about it before. Interesting how Israeli military intelligence kept it out of the media in Israel.

yeah the media today is so like that of 1954 Israel

 

[tmd2_1]

Wow tmd. that is really interesting about Operation Layon. I never heard about it before. Interesting how Israeli military intelligence kept it out of the media in Israel.

Thank you. Yes many people are unaware of this It is unfortunate but we know what what the responses will be like. Despite the fact that this is indeed fact. I'm simply reporting a fact.

 

[NoahFence]

...a fact that has zero to do with 9/11. None whatsoever.

 

[newton3376]

The firefighters were told that WTC7 was going to come down.

Many firefighters disagree that WTC7 should have collapsed and have joined Firefighters for 9/11 Truth to voice their contrary opinion.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Do you think they are being deceptive?

MM

Do you guys have ANY petitions that are at 1%?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I agree that the "they hate our freedom" is overhyped and misses the core motivation of terrorists. I expect though that terrorists at least hate something about those they target. Wouldn't you? Or what is your general assumption about what emotions motivate terrorists? Love of something maybe?


Yes. If.
Since 9/11 wasn't a false flag, you at least lose that certainty.


Would you say positively that religious fanatics did commite some terrorist acts? How about fanatic muslims (just to pre-empt a dodge of the sort "isn't Bush a religious fanatic")?


Could. But let me guess: You don't know any examples of terrorist acts that definitely were? How about more specifically terrorist acts by fanatic muslims?


I may have missed something from the 9/11 Commission report, but - why do you say they had to "figure out A/C security"? Can you please say specifically which measures of A/C security they had to figure out and devise workarounds for to successfully carry out their plot? And how you know that?


Seems hard to you that 19 (well, add a handful of helpers here: KSM, OBL, Binhalshib, Moussaoui...) conspirators could keep a secret for a couple of years?
Cool.
So instead you think it is more likley that at least several thousand of co-consoirators even more loosely connected to each other (the missile guys have no natural connection to the Air Traffic Controllers, the airline maintenance guys nothing with the coroners and DNA specialists, the NTSB nothing with NIST...) can keep a secret for over 10 years??


Absolutely. Yes.


Well, maybe. I don't think everyone agrees with this, but probably this idea has some traction here at the JREF.
So?


I agree with you that AQ doesn't seem to have achieved much of substance, and also that this sort of attack wasn't even likely to give them significant gains in terms of power, wealth, or political progress.
But I have something for you to ponder:

I read an interesting article a while ago "What Terrorists Really Want" by Max Abrahams, who (in 2008, when the article was written) was a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California. The author challenges the conventional theory that terrorists are rational actors who take to violence against civilians as a means of last resort to address political grievances. He notes that terrorists rarely acieve their stated goals, do not have a stable set of political goals but rather evolve over time, rarely abandon terrorism when their goals have been met, or when non-violent means of achieving them become feasible.
Terrorist on the other hand are not irrational.
Instead, he proposes, their real motivation is not a political agenda, but status among fellow terrorist, to "develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists".
These 19 men and their backoffice certainly achieved that goal, and how! Al Qaida has rapidly stepped from relative obscurity into the limelight of a world-famous brand name.

Now, no one has to buy this theory, and I am not sure I fully agree with Abrahams, but I do think he is onto something! In particular, the expectation that terrorists truly want to wrest political goals (power increase would fall under that scope of "political") from their victims is dubious.

This. So much this.

Asking "what would a terrorist gain by killing himself on an airplane?" is not a valid question. Of course it's an irrational act. We are after all talking about mentally ill people. Religious fanatics who have lost every single touch with reality. These Religious fanatics are convinced beyond any possible doubt that they are following God's will, therefore, they hold no regrets, have absolutely no doubts, and are certain that they will go to some "Heaven" after they die. So it's perfectly rational that Religious fanatics are doing something insane that defies common sense.

And like the poster above me explained, if you think it's inconceivable to put together this terrorist act without getting caught, the alternative explanation is even more unlikely: That this is an organized plot put together by much more people, who belong to very different organizations, all of them successfully keeping it secret.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Do you guys have ANY petitions that are at 1%?

Do they have any at 0.1% or even 0.01%???

 

[bill smith]

...a fact that has zero to do with 9/11. None whatsoever.

I don't know so much about that. It's very possibly a good reason why the media has been so compliant with the government on things 9/11 in America.
Also if the media want to jump ship anytime now they will be able to imply that this is what happened in the States and publicise Operation Layon widely as a backup.
An escape route for the media all in a nice package with little bows on it.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't know so much

Yea, we got that.