9/11 The US did it or they are massively incompetent

rationalist

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
621
Ok so there are essentially two schools of thought on this.

One is that a foreign terrorist organisation was able to arrange for several planes to be hjacked on the same day and when the NYC defence planes were ALL on a training exercise elsewhere. And that these planes were flown with precision accuracy by pilots with no relevant flying experience. That this caused two buildings designed to withstand airliner impact to collapse to dust and a third steel framed building to collapse due to fire even though this has never happened anywhere else in the world. That one of the planes went through a small hole in the pentagon wall and the wreckage disappeared and there was no pollution of the water table with aircraft fuel. That all of this caused the death of 3,000 or so US citizens and that despite the huge failure in defence and intelligence not one person was disciplined and several people involved in the failure were promoted.

The other is that this story is inconsistent at best and a total lie at worst with the complicity of the US government as the only factor that makes any sense of the information.

So was the US Government complicit or massively incompetent?

Either way, why wasn't the Bush administration brought to book?

Why hasn't one single person been disciplined under either interpretation?
 
Werbung:
One is that a foreign terrorist organization was able to arrange for several planes to be hijacked on the same day and when the NYC defense planes were ALL on a training exercise elsewhere. And that these planes were flown with precision accuracy by pilots with no relevant flying experience. That this caused two buildings designed to withstand airliner impact to collapse to dust and a third steel framed building to collapse due to fire even though this has never happened anywhere else in the world. That one of the planes went through a small hole in the pentagon wall and the wreckage disappeared and there was no pollution of the water table with aircraft fuel. That all of this caused the death of 3,000 or so US citizens and that despite the huge failure in defense and intelligence not one person was disciplined and several people involved in the failure were promoted.

You're right. Brown skinned people from the middle east are obviously racially inferior and couldn't possibly pull off such a well coordinated attack. BTW, prior to 9/11, we didn't fly domestic armed air patrols because of the Posse Comitatus Act (which also slowed the initial federal response after Katrina).

So was the US Government complicit or massively incompetent?

They were massively incompetent, which is why I don't support government run health care.

Either way, why wasn't the Bush administration brought to book? Why hasn't one single person been disciplined under either interpretation?

It was a failure across multiple administrations and was a result in part of both Congressional limitations on the power of the federal government and the US public's lack of concern about Al Qaida--they didn't see them as capable of the type attack carried out, so they wouldn't support the type of action that would've been necessary to prevent it. There was no one person responsible, so unless you wanted to fire half of the people in the security apparatus, what was the point? We had to learn from our mistakes and move on. Blame Bush if you want, but he was answerable to the people, who apparently felt like I do as far as blame is concerned when they re-elected him.
 
So you are saying that the CIA intel is so crappy that they couldn't spot this most intricate of plans?

But their intel is good enough to put people in GTMO and torture them without trial and you lot think it is OK because they must be guilty?

And that these sophisticated Al Qaeda operatives were smart enough to pull off the attack but not smart enough to keep quiet about having no interest in learning take off or landing at the simulator school?

The threat of airliners being used as missiles has been known about for years prior to 9/11.

Having no defences against such an eventuality is a breathtaking dereliction of duty. And as Cheyney took control of the relevant fighter planes 3 months prior to the attack maybe someone should start by questioning him.

And if what you are saying is true about the fighter planes why did they actually scramble some? Shame it was from an airbase too far away to get there in time rather than from the obvious one close by.

The US had no problem shooting down an Iranian airliner full of civilians 5 months before Locherbie
 
Stunning rebuttal.

The fact is you cannot say that the US did not deploy fighter planes at that time because they did deploy them.

Just from an airfield further away than necessary thereby facillitating mission success on the part of the attackers.
 
Stunning rebuttal.

The fact is you cannot say that the US did not deploy fighter planes at that time because they did deploy them.

Just from an airfield further away than necessary thereby facillitating mission success on the part of the attackers.

I can say alot of stuff about that, i can dance circles around your ideas.....I am not going to.

1. There are many threads on this already, its done...

2. Wrong area for the topic, and you know it, as you already posted your crap in Conspiricy where is should be.

3. You don't care about truth, and no amount of facts I gave you, would change your mind...ever...

4. I don't enjoy wasting my time on people like you.
 
Another stunning rebuttal

With powerful arguments against the facts like that how could anyone believe them?

BTW what I am posting here is not a conpsiracy theory. It is basically the two theories that have been proffered for what happened on 9/11.

Do ty and keep up Pocketfullofsh....
 
Has there ever been a good report, available to the public, that explains why Building 7 collapsed? I'm not convinced that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government, but it does makes me less confident in the construction of our high-rises. They sure do seem to fall down pretty easily.
 
No steel framed building in the world outside of the 9/11 incidents has ever collapsed due to fire. There have been 50 or so such fires and they rage for weeks being notoriously hard to put out.

Except for tower 7 which fell down in a matter of hours and miraculously collapsed on its own footprint.

Anyone would think it had been the subject of a controlled demolition.
 
Well, I can't go there yet. But has there been a study on the issue... peer reviewed and available to the public? I'd be interested in it.

Funny...you are asking someone to back his, her, its viewpoints with a reputable source and that person/thing has yet to do that one time.

What a silly question to ask.
 
Well, I can't go there yet. But has there been a study on the issue... peer reviewed and available to the public? I'd be interested in it.

No, there has been no peer review examination of the 9/11 business. However, at least two of the people who served on the government appointed 9/11 Commission--and helped put together the thousands of pages report--have repudiated the report and say that much was left out to make the report acceptable.

I don't get involved in this argument much because there is no point to it. There are so many inconsistencies and weird coincidences it could very well be a government run program, or it could just be a normal human endeavor that worked FOR them and AGAINST us just by good/bad luck.

I do think the Posse Commitatus argument is a trifle silly in light of that meaning that the US Military is forbidden to protect the Pentagon. Figher jets fly out of the Portland, OR airport almost daily and they make runs up the Columbia Gorge, along the coast, and all over Hell's half-acre.

More than arguing about it I'd like to have some answers, but I know that they will not be forthcoming, so why bother to argue? I'd like to know what happened to the gold in the repository under the twin towers. I'd like to know what caused the explosions under each of the Twin Towers just before they began collapsing, explosions that were recorded by seismographs and could be triangulated with pinpoint accuracy to occuring UNDER each of the Towers.

In this, like in all government and political issues I think that we should go by the axiom: We know they're lying--their lips are moving. Shoot, look at the Presidential fiasco, the American people voted overwhelmingly to get something different than George Bush and what we got was Obie Bush who's continuing the same crap as George: more war, more finacial support for the rich, more Patriot Act, no ban on torture, more of the same criminals running the Fed and the banking system. George bombed America into submission and Obie is strafing the survivors. Just remember that no matter who you vote for the Government gets elected.
 
The US did deploy fighters on 9/11.

It is just that they did it badly enough to ensure the planes hit their targets
 
So was the US Government complicit or massively incompetent?
Massively incompetent....OBVIOUSLY!!

"Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was ob$e$$ed with setting up a national system of mi$$ile defen$e."

HOW MANY DAMNED TIMES DO PEOPLE NEEDED TO BE REMINDED OF THIS???!!!!

:mad:

Either way, why wasn't the Bush administration brought to book?

Why hasn't one single person been disciplined under either interpretation?
After The INEVITABLE happened, the folks at BUSHCO marginalized everyone who'd questioned events, with "THIS ISN'T TIME TO ASSIGN BEHAVIOR! ALL OF THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED, LATER!!" (You know....like after they split from D.C.!!) All the folks, at BUSHCO, had to do was question all of their detractors' Patriotism....and, all o' their enablers promptly fell-in-line, 'cause....after all....what would the neighbors say, if you were found-out to question The Adults that took-over, after the Clinton Years??!!!
 
Werbung:
Back
Top