New Theories Urgently Needed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well lets look at the facts. two planes hit the wtc and a lot of people died. i dont think anyone is disputing that.

Sure, but the balance of probability makes 'direct intent' on the part of the US government or some sort of affiliated agency extremely unlikely. There is simply no precedent in existence to justify that claim or give it a single shred of validity.

Neither is there any precedent for a massive structure like the WTC being hit by 2 fully laden passenger planes running at full speed. This is where chaos theory comes in, there are simply so many variables that noone can definitively know what would happen. 1000+ feet of composite materials. Hmmm.....

nor do i think any here on vj are qualified to offer an expert opinion on such. although some do try

Actually I don't think the so-called experts who came forward can claim much more than 'it didn't collapse the way we thought it would'. So what? They can't exactly test their theory can they? which is why their claims are entirely theoretical and unsubstantiated.

Yep. And I would hazard a guess that economically speaking, the US got less $$$ out of Afghanistan than the economic fallout of 9/11.

Though one would have to admit that certain entities fared and still fare rather well from all of this. And those entities do happen to be rather closely linked to those running the show at this point in time and have at that point in time. Does that create some sort of correlation? Not really. I'd see this as taking advantage of an opportunity rather than creating one. But that's just me.

Oh sure, the Halliburton's of the world certainly turned a tidy profit from those reconstruction contracts - but its reasonable to suggest perhaps that they were also damaged by 9/11 along with every single major corporation.

What kind of business plan involves destroying your own assets, or pissing away your profits - even in the short -medium term?

[Fandango 1,439]

It is hard to get actual numbers. A lot of people in the army are there because they are of a certain intellect or a certain violent disposition or perhaps they are turned into viiolent people. I am not suggesting that they are all dumb violent people but there is an element of that. There was at least one soldier i recall who refused to fight. Maybe there are more. Getting a figure on that is tough.

Absolutely disgusting and just unbelievably ignorant. You, sir are a disgrace.

Then again, he thinks bin laden has just as much right to be in England as does the Queen.

have a looksie

But the second you slagged off the military (one which I'm guessing you don't have a lot of first hand knowledge about) you lost every last shred of credibility.

Stop watching Jarhead.

[dalegg 143]

You know, maybe we're dismissing this conspiracy theory because we don't believe the US government is competent enough to pull it off and furthermore we cannot put our fingers on exactly what the motive would be.

I suggest that we have to look at who would benefit the most from turmoil in Afghanastan- and that would be the Mexican and/or South American Drug cartels. Perhaps they are the ones responsible and it had nothing to do with any grievence with the US Government or problems with Al Qaeda. It was simply that by having the U.S attack Afghanastan, there would be more of a demand for South of the Border Heroin and thus they could raise their prices.

Think about it- everyone knows that Drug Cartels always employ skilled pilots and the "middle eastern" accomplaces could have actually been unsuspecting day laborers picked up in front of Home Depot to make a few extra bucks. Where do you think they got those box knives from anyway?

[sukie175 0]

It is hard to get actual numbers. A lot of people in the army are there because they are of a certain intellect or a certain violent disposition or perhaps they are turned into viiolent people. I am not suggesting that they are all dumb violent people but there is an element of that. There was at least one soldier i recall who refused to fight. Maybe there are more. Getting a figure on that is tough.

Absolutely disgusting and just unbelievably ignorant. You, sir are a disgrace.

Then again, he thinks bin laden has just as much right to be in England as does the Queen.

have a looksie

But the second you slagged off the military (one which I'm guessing you don't have a lot of first hand knowledge about) you lost every last shred of credibility.

Stop watching Jarhead.

He is a Jarhead

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know, maybe we're dismissing this conspiracy theory because we don't believe the US government is competent enough to pull it off and furthermore we cannot put our fingers on exactly what the motive would be.

I suggest that we have to look at who would benefit the most from turmoil in Afghanastan- and that would be the Mexican and/or South American Drug cartels. Perhaps they are the ones responsible and it had nothing to do with any grievence with the US Government or problems with Al Qaeda. It was simply that by having the U.S attack Afghanastan, there would be more of a demand for South of the Border Heroin and thus they could raise their prices.

Think about it- everyone knows that Drug Cartels always employ skilled pilots and the "middle eastern" accomplaces could have actually been unsuspecting day laborers picked up in front of Home Depot to make a few extra bucks. Where do you think they got those box knives from anyway?

Except that the heroin trade in Afghanistan has boomed since the war. Its still the world leading exporter as far as I know.

As for box-cutters, we should declare pre-emptive war on Home Despot, quickly followed by a three-pronged 5-year plan to liberate the employees of Office Despot.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[dalegg 143]

You know, maybe we're dismissing this conspiracy theory because we don't believe the US government is competent enough to pull it off and furthermore we cannot put our fingers on exactly what the motive would be.

I suggest that we have to look at who would benefit the most from turmoil in Afghanastan- and that would be the Mexican and/or South American Drug cartels. Perhaps they are the ones responsible and it had nothing to do with any grievence with the US Government or problems with Al Qaeda. It was simply that by having the U.S attack Afghanastan, there would be more of a demand for South of the Border Heroin and thus they could raise their prices.

Think about it- everyone knows that Drug Cartels always employ skilled pilots and the "middle eastern" accomplaces could have actually been unsuspecting day laborers picked up in front of Home Depot to make a few extra bucks. Where do you think they got those box knives from anyway?

Except that the heroin trade in Afghanistan has boomed since the war. Its still the world leading exporter as far as I know.

Sometimes the best laid plans can backfire on you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know, maybe we're dismissing this conspiracy theory because we don't believe the US government is competent enough to pull it off and furthermore we cannot put our fingers on exactly what the motive would be.

I suggest that we have to look at who would benefit the most from turmoil in Afghanastan- and that would be the Mexican and/or South American Drug cartels. Perhaps they are the ones responsible and it had nothing to do with any grievence with the US Government or problems with Al Qaeda. It was simply that by having the U.S attack Afghanastan, there would be more of a demand for South of the Border Heroin and thus they could raise their prices.

Think about it- everyone knows that Drug Cartels always employ skilled pilots and the "middle eastern" accomplaces could have actually been unsuspecting day laborers picked up in front of Home Depot to make a few extra bucks. Where do you think they got those box knives from anyway?

Except that the heroin trade in Afghanistan has boomed since the war. Its still the world leading exporter as far as I know.

Sometimes the best laid plans can backfire on you.

No comment there.

[yabasta 0]

Absolutely disgusting and just unbelievably ignorant. You, sir are a disgrace.

Then again, he thinks bin laden has just as much right to be in England as does the Queen.

have a looksie

But the second you slagged off the military (one which I'm guessing you don't have a lot of first hand knowledge about) you lost every last shred of credibility.

Stop watching Jarhead.

Your personal attacks are just ridiculous but i shall respond for hte hell of it.

Firstly you may not agree with my points in the other topic but they are in the other topic and therefore not relevant to this topic. Secondly i have not seen Jarhead i`m afraid so i am not sure what you are trying to say. I can provide evidence to support my views on "a lot" (and i never stated all or most despite what some of you seem intent on saying) of soldiers.

I am a disgrace because i disagree with you or just because i think a lot of soldiers are not that bright? I notice of course you provide no counter argument just personal attacks.

He is a Jarhead

You have provided nothing of value to this debate from what i recall. You post some smilies and some insults and i wonder why you bother posting on a message board if all you can do is stand behind somebody and say "yeah".

Pathetic really.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Wow 8 pages now...

I agree - asking questions about our government is an essential part of our democracy.

On this particular issue, however, I honestly think that the support of any conspiracy theory with regards to 9/11 requires a broad lack of education and simple common sense.

I just don't understand how someone can see 'pre-meditated intent' being a more likely cause of the disaster than 'bureaucratic incompetance". That's wishful thinking IMO...

There is simply no historical precedent for this that would suggest that the government (or part of the government) conspired to murder thousands of its own people, and were prepared to do massive damage to the infrastructure of the economy simply to justify a war. Its ridiculous - even if it were true we would be living in a much more authoritarian world than we currently do.

The Bush administration has made many bad decisions, Iraq - yes, domestic spying - sure, but they are far from the omnipotent entity that such a conspiracy theory would require. Someone who can 'secretly' collude to destroy the WTC should have no trouble getting their bills through congress.

I think that some of the theories surrounding 9/11 have merit (ar least until we have been through a convincing investigation), but not those claiming that the government planned and executed the attacks. However, there is credible evidence that the government refused to acknowledge intercepted messages in the days before the attacks and if you combine that with PNAC, that smells somewhat fishy. Add to that the reluctance of the administration in the first months in power to view terrorism as a real danger...

[yabasta 0]

Just out of curiousity why do those claiming government involvement not have merit?

[Fuzzness 2]

Just out of curiousity why do those claiming government involvement not have merit?

because there is no solid evidence

[yabasta 0]

They have no merit due to no solid evidence? Well there is no solid evidence maybe but there is still evidence pointing in that direction and plenty of it. So i would suggest that maybe there is merit to such ideas. Or at least more merit to them than is given.

To dismiss any theory when no theory has "solid evidence" is rather selective and probably not a good way to approach things.

and when i say no solid evidence i mean most evidence can work for a number of theories.

[Fuzzness 2]

sorry but thats the way i think. i don't believe everything everyone says. i would rather think i am being cautious with that approach.

do i believe American 77 hit the pentagon? no. What did? I don't know. what happened to those passengers? couldn't tell ya.

do I believe that two 767'####### the WTC? yes. do I believe people died? yes. do I believe the govt is behind this? no. do I believe they could have done it? I don't know

sorry but I look at the info I have and form my own opinions and have many questions, with the knowledge that I have. I know quite a bit about airplanes. but I don't know much about metallurgy, so I don't know if the towers collapsed from the intense heat or if something else took it down (i think that is unlikely)

[yabasta 0]

Well that is a good way to approach it. I was not suggesting you should just accept what anybody says. I just think that all possible scenarios shoould be considered possible. I have not always thought 9/11 was any different to how the t.v. said it happened until i started to look at evidence and events surrounding 9/11. Most people don`t know about the physics etc which is why they accept that jet fuel brought down the towers and box cutters took over 4 planes and 3 of those planes then hit their target. I just don`t buy it based on the evidence i have seen.

[Fuzzness 2]

I do accept that all things are possible. but some things are so improbable that they are easily dismissed.