Who is Behind 9/11 and Why? (Chomsky)

[Courier]

Not so.

The courts are run by the same clique who put Bush into office, and all of this is information you received from the media mouthpieces of those who have profited handsomely from 9/11.

Question, when is a CIA agent no longer a CIA agent?

That's one massive conspiracy you imagine. It shows how absurd your stand on this issue is.

I bet they get a real laugh from this at Battery Park City huh?

 

[yankee451]

That's one massive conspiracy you imagine. It shows how absurd your stand on this issue is.

I bet they get a real laugh from this at Battery Park City huh?

Bin Laden denied responsibility for 9/11, the Muslim world has been invaded and hundreds of thousands have been killed but the weapons industry increased it's profits tenfold. It's not hard to find who profited from it.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Bin Laden denied responsibility for 9/11, the Muslim world has been invaded and hundreds of thousands have been killed but the weapons industry increased it's profits tenfold. It's not hard to find who profited from it.

Profit can mean many things, for example:

The hijackers. They thought they were going to an everlasting paradise, right up until they died.

 

[JohnG]

Exactly here:

Since it is clearly going to take a month to tease an actual answer out of you, I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that what you are implying is that not all people who stand to gain from a crime are necessarily responsible? Or perhaps, it isn't just motive, but means and opportunity that have to be factored in? Am I getting warmer? If so, great, we agree on something, but here's the problem:

1. You refuse to acknowledge that the hijackers, too, had something to gain (or at least believed they had something to gain) from the attacks, therefore "who profits?" settles nothing in an "official story" vs. "MIHOP" debate.

2. Your biases, coupled with your so-called "school of hard knocks education" on the subjects of architecture, physics, metallurgy, jets, missiles, crash scene investigation and a number of other fields makes you ill-equipped to determine what did or did not happen on 9/11/2001. You leapt to the conclusion that the government had to be the culprit because the 19 hijackers did not have the "means, motive and opportunity", but that's only because your ignorance and biases resulted in a spurious counter-"theory" where only the government could have carried out the attacks. Rational, intelligent adults know that the "school of hard knocks" may teach some valuable lessons, but what it doesn't teach is how to build (or destroy) a skyscraper, or what a missile is capable of, or what kind of crater a crashed jet will form.

 

[Nick Terry]

War is our business, and business is good.

Weapons are America's hottest export, so it's in their best interests to foment fear, revolution and strife so as to ensure future markets. In this context, the CIA would be the marketing arm for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. So how well has the arms industry increased profits since 9/11? Why, it's been a bang-up time to be in the destruction industry, for sure:

Your understanding of economics is shockingly poor. The major US export is capital, not guns; arms sales add up to a few percent of all US overseas exports (well under 5%) whereas consumer exports are massively more important, and military spending has been down below 5% since the Cold War (in the Vietnam era it barely reached 10%, versus 37% in WWII). Most US military spending goes on personnel, construction, operating expenses and housing; with procurement coming to less than a quarter of all spending in the latest figures.

If the US defense industry was really so export-oriented then they'd make cheaper weapons that would actually have a market. Less than 2000 Abrams tanks have been sold overseas (more than half of which went to Egypt) since the M1 became operational, whereas the US Army and Marine Corps has received nearly 9,000 since 1980. Some of the export sales were hand-me-downs as the M1 has gone through several models.

Same with aircraft and other toys; they're all so expensive, and so strategically important, that they are sold to trusted strategic allies while other nations buy from Russia or Europe. Production runs are pathetic in most cases.

There ultimately isn't much to choose between the US and Russia in terms of arms sales, the sole difference is Russian models are a bit cheaper and are operated by a wider range of countries. Moreover there was a glut of Soviet models available after 1989-1991 which have found their way across the globe; which is why Iran bought 104 T-72s from Poland while producing another 422 itself under license from Russia. An awful lot of ex-NATO hardware has spread across the globe, too.

If the military-industrial complex really wanted to recapture the glory days of the Cold War and the accompanying profits, then they'd have engineered tension with China, in order to justify serious spending on really substantial amounts of hardware. GWOT just doesn't cut it by comparison to the halcyon days of the Reagan build-up, I'm afraid.

 

[Reactor drone]

War is our business, and business is good.

Weapons are America's hottest export, so it's in their best interests to foment fear, revolution and strife so as to ensure future markets. In this context, the CIA would be the marketing arm for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. So how well has the arms industry increased profits since 9/11? Why, it's been a bang-up time to be in the destruction industry, for sure:

So they spend trillions to make billions and fight a war that uses up imported oil resources in order to ensure the flow of imported oil?

 

[yankee451]

Since it is clearly going to take a month to tease an actual answer out of you, I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that what you are implying is that not all people who stand to gain from a crime are necessarily responsible? Or perhaps, it isn't just motive, but means and opportunity that have to be factored in? Am I getting warmer? If so, great, we agree on something, but here's the problem:

1. You refuse to acknowledge that the hijackers, too, had something to gain (or at least believed they had something to gain) from the attacks, therefore "who profits?" settles nothing in an "official story" vs. "MIHOP" debate.

2. Your biases, coupled with your so-called "school of hard knocks education" on the subjects of architecture, physics, metallurgy, jets, missiles, crash scene investigation and a number of other fields makes you ill-equipped to determine what did or did not happen on 9/11/2001. You leapt to the conclusion that the government had to be the culprit because the 19 hijackers did not have the "means, motive and opportunity", but that's only because your ignorance and biases resulted in a spurious counter-"theory" where only the government could have carried out the attacks. Rational, intelligent adults know that the "school of hard knocks" may teach some valuable lessons, but what it doesn't teach is how to build (or destroy) a skyscraper, or what a missile is capable of, or what kind of crater a crashed jet will form.

My eyes glazed over after; "Since it is clearly going to take a month to tease an actual answer out of you"

 

[yankee451]

Your understanding of economics is shockingly poor. The major US export is capital, not guns; arms sales add up to a few percent of all US overseas exports (well under 5%) whereas consumer exports are massively more important, and military spending has been down below 5% since the Cold War (in the Vietnam era it barely reached 10%, versus 37% in WWII). Most US military spending goes on personnel, construction, operating expenses and housing; with procurement coming to less than a quarter of all spending in the latest figures.

If the US defense industry was really so export-oriented then they'd make cheaper weapons that would actually have a market. Less than 2000 Abrams tanks have been sold overseas (more than half of which went to Egypt) since the M1 became operational, whereas the US Army and Marine Corps has received nearly 9,000 since 1980. Some of the export sales were hand-me-downs as the M1 has gone through several models.

Same with aircraft and other toys; they're all so expensive, and so strategically important, that they are sold to trusted strategic allies while other nations buy from Russia or Europe. Production runs are pathetic in most cases.

There ultimately isn't much to choose between the US and Russia in terms of arms sales, the sole difference is Russian models are a bit cheaper and are operated by a wider range of countries. Moreover there was a glut of Soviet models available after 1989-1991 which have found their way across the globe; which is why Iran bought 104 T-72s from Poland while producing another 422 itself under license from Russia. An awful lot of ex-NATO hardware has spread across the globe, too.

If the military-industrial complex really wanted to recapture the glory days of the Cold War and the accompanying profits, then they'd have engineered tension with China, in order to justify serious spending on really substantial amounts of hardware. GWOT just doesn't cut it by comparison to the halcyon days of the Reagan build-up, I'm afraid.

Your figures reinforce the conclusion that without a fraudulent cold war to justify military spending, the Pentagon concocted a "war on terror" to replace it. Your understanding of history is shockingly poor.

 

[yankee451]

So they spend trillions to make billions and fight a war that uses up imported oil resources in order to ensure the flow of imported oil?

They don't spend a dime - they see the profit, while we the people are stuck with the bill.

 

[Courier]

Your figures reinforce the conclusion that without a fraudulent cold war to justify military spending, the Pentagon concocted a "war on terror" to replace it. Your understanding of history is shockingly poor.

You have no idea how funny that sounds.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

You should have a comic show, or a magic act or something...no wait...

We do, feel free to continue.

 

[yankee451]

You have no idea how funny that sounds.

Let me put this another way -

If Colonel Mustard published his intent to kill Miss Scarlett with a candlestick in the Drawing Room, and a few weeks later Miss Scarlett's bludgeoned body was found in the Drawing Room next to a bloody candlestick, would you accuse Mrs. Peacock of murder?

 

[yankee451]

We do, feel free to continue.

So when is Randi and Roudy's next performance?

 

[Courier]

Let me put this another way -

If Colonel Mustard published his intent to kill Miss Scarlett with a candlestick in the Drawing Room, and a few weeks later Miss Scarlett's bludgeoned body was found in the Drawing Room next to a bloody candlestick, would you accuse Mrs. Peacock of murder?

This should be on your billboard in Battery Park City.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Courier

There's this crazy idea out there that a bunch of knuckle-dragging, cavemen Arabs were able to hijack four planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Originally Posted by yankee451
It's only crazy if you think about it.

Sarcasm flew over your head huh?

When expressing irony or sarcasm, emoticons are your very best friend. This is a good one:

I still say this thread belongs in a section other than "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", or in AAH.

 

[trustbutverify]

They don't spend a dime - they see the profit, while we the people are stuck with the bill.

Ok, but how does the fake Moon shots and alien lizard-people play into all of this?

 

[tsig]

Your figures reinforce the conclusion that without a fraudulent cold war to justify military spending, the Pentagon concocted a "war on terror" to replace it. Your understanding of history is shockingly poor.

Looks like your eyes glazed again.

 

[tsig]

Let me put this another way -

If Colonel Mustard published his intent to kill Miss Scarlett with a candlestick in the Drawing Room, and a few weeks later Miss Scarlett's bludgeoned body was found in the Drawing Room next to a bloody candlestick, would you accuse Mrs. Peacock of murder?

I'd wonder how a game figure managed to publish besides Colonel Mustard is a know boaster and you can't trust a thing he says.

Since Mrs. Peacock was known to be jealous of Miss Scarlett and likes candlesticks she's looking good for it.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

So when is Randi and Roudy's next performance?

I see, reading comprehension not your best subject then?

 

[yankee451]

Your understanding of economics is shockingly poor...blah blah blah

Have you seen this chart? This is very interesting:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/5-19-2013-7-57-37-PM.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

Besides unclear weapons, "research and development", and "war", what's the biggest expenditure? "Other."