MCFCinUSA said:
I'm not going to get into all the stupidities of what some people 'argue' or think, but I'll just leave this for you Damo because it should give you another angle which some people on here have tried to express in their own ways:
IF the WTC buildings were blown-up ask yourself how the explosives got in them?
IF the WTC buildings were rigged, ask yourself who did it?
It makes utterly no sense, and should be immediately obvious to anyone with any knowledge of this kind of thing:
- the Twin Towers were huge, and if they were going to be detonated would take a staggering amount of explosive charges to bring them down, and you're talking about truckloads and truckloads of the stuff, along with all the wiring and equipment necessary to get everything into place and make everything work. All of that isn't something you sneak into a building in a brown paper lunch bag when 'someone' is looking the other way. Pro-demo experts have estimated that it could take up to a year to rig that kind of job, not 'a couple of weeks' you see people talking about because they think some sneaky refurb job was going on at the time on such-and-such a floor. The WTC complex, for people who were never in them - and I've lived in NYC over an extensive period (I ate at Windows on the World) and I took my sister on a visit with my bro-in-law to the top of WTC2 - operated around the clock, and had very strict security, especially after the 1993 attempt to blow-up a bomb underneath it. Imagine trying to carry in tonnes of explosives and wiring equipment (I mean, they wouldn't even fit in the lifts all at once, and there were nearly 100 of them, and how many people are you going to need to carry in so many loads in all of those?) you're just not 'sneaking' stuff in here, this isn't a James Bond film where he's blowing up a little refinery with explosives and a detonator he has hidden in his dinner suit, know what I'm getting at?
- secondly, aside from the simple logistics of doing a demo-job and the sheer scale of it, who did it?
The WTC was an active building, who in their right minds is going to rig it (aside from the impossibility of all that happening) for explosion? Other than terrorists, naturally.
Doesn't anyone stop and think to ask that if they were approached by 'someone' to rig the BT Tower for explosion they might stop for a moment and ask "but aren't there are still people in it?"
The sheer scale of stupidities involved in trying to 'think everything through' with regards to the 'idea' that the WTC was an inside job is just on the above alone, ridiculous.
That is why all the other chatter is redundant.
That is why, especially when you have commercial jets crashing into it, the balance of probability lies in a terrorist attack and the aircraft being hijacked, and I guess the probability increases somewhat when you have all the evidence of Al-Q and their involvement and planning, which is not only known to various intelligence agencies around the world (including the Americans) but is also something that Al-Q happened to come out and admit themselves directly.
Only the feeble-minded believe that all American intelligence agencies, operatives, and assigns are all bent, and that somehow the 'Americans' conspired to blow-up their own buildings and cause massive economic dislocation the world over because of 'oil' or 'money', or 'reasons to invade Iraq or Afghanistan' (for 'money' or 'oil' etc etc) it just gets sillier and sillier. I've talked about such rubbish enough in other postings on this site, along with how idiotic are some of the notions of how 'rich' or 'powerful' people behave.
The president of the USA can't even take a piss in private - even if he was deranged and had a total brain fart of a treasonable act (sorry idea) in his head, as he'd be straight-jacketed and whisked away by the rest of the US Gov't. The president can't even get a BJ from an intern without jeopardising his job FFS.
So anyway Damo, it's all nice and dandy waxing lyrical about having an open mind, and I've had many experiences that I'd say aren't explainable in conventional western terms, but thinking (and especially admitting to people in public) that 9/11 was 'an inside job' is only something someone really, really stupid would do, probably because they're too stupid to realise how stupid it all is, and how stupid such an admission happens to be.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
- and when you think of all the terrible things that have happened, 9/11 being one of them, stuff that happened during WWII another, and that less than fifty years ago people were still being publicly strung-up in trees in some parts of the US where I've lived, you begin to get a feel of how dangerous being stupidly ignorant can really be.
The problem with this answer, is that instead of addressing genuine points, you call people stupid. Alternatively, you ask strawman questions.
This cheapens your whole argument and strengthens the side of those who do believe it was an inside job. Just by contributing in this manner, you are giving the other side ammunition, they come across as reasonable, logical and wanting to debate ideas; you come across as close minded and stubborn without effort. There are real scientific answers for the questions that are been posed to you, and if you want to try and convince people of your correctness, it's probably better to do it this way than rely on logical fallacies and insults.
Personally, I believe that a group of terrorists living in Germany, funded by people in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who were independent from any greater terrorist body, organised and committed a brazen act of terrorism. They did so as an act of revenge against the US for what they saw as illegal acts within their paternal and religious homeland. Those acts were committed by the US for greater economic or political power in the region.
On the "independent from any greater terrorist body" comment, I just want to clarify. I have never supported the notion that Al-Qaeda is, was or will ever be a large organisation with cells, structure and lines of command. I've never supported this simply because there's no evidence to support it; only one person has ever even alluded to this, and he was caught years before 9/11, and is roundly seen as somebody who made it up in a deal with the US Government so that they could charge Bin Laden for his previous crimes in absentia.
However, this doesn't mean that Al-Qaeda is a fallacy in itself. I'd describe Al-Qaeda as a collection of ideas and a view of history that is been taught by radical Imams through various places in the Middle East and Africa. I do believe that the 9/11 hijackers (or at least the head hijacker) bought in to these ideals. I also believe that people with similar objectives sometimes loosely help each other out to achieve a common goal. When some of the hijackers visited Spain in July 2001, I imagine that they were visiting a business partner rather than their boss in an organisation.
I have problems with both sides in this debate, and I always have done. On the truthers side, my problem was that they pick and choose evidence. They like to focus on the melting point of steel, but not on other questions. Why would you put explosives in a building that a plane has just twatted into at 500 mph? Doesn't the plane strike achieve the same goal in a Northwoods scenario? How did the US get the funding to Atta without been traced? Why did they choose a group of guys from Hamburg when they could have easily had a group of Saudis suicide bomb the middle of Times Square and numerous other places for far less cash and risk? 9/11 as a government operation makes no logical sense.
On the other side, I feel that many of the people on this side refuse to acknowledge why 9/11 happened at all. The United States is one of the only nations in history to be found guilty of international terrorism by the World Court. In 1980s, the actions committed by them in Nicaragua were abhorrent and shameful. Similarly, the actions of the United States and their intervention in the political landscape of the Middle East has been an absolute disaster. Then we have the government mandated prison, which has admitted to torturing people and holding them without trial whilst been hid in an offshore/friendly country.
Even more recently, 79 Navy SEALS invaded a foreign land, stormed an unguarded complex, shot an innocent woman because she "lunged at them" then summarily executed Bin Laden, performed no autopsy and dumped him into the sea.
If the US would have put him in the Hague, they could have put the 9/11 truth movement to bed for good. Just as the Nuremberg Trials put the crimes of Nazism to bed once and for all. There's no arguing the Holocaust when you've got guys who admitted slaying millions of people because they were Jewish.
The United States has done so much good in this world at various points in its history, but it has also committed depraved and sickening acts of violence. My annoyance with some people is how they want to live in a comic book, where there are "good guys", "bad guys", heroes and villains. Neither Islamic terrorists nor the United States fit these roles. Or maybe they fit both of these roles simultaneously. The terrorists are certainly heroes to many whilst the US is the villain whilst in the West it tends to be the US as the heroes and the terrorists as the villains. In a purely human context, morality is a byproduct of environment. However, nations aren't human so their morality isn't as wavering, especially one which describes itself which such hyperbole as the United States does.
BASIC morality, and I mean that of a child, dictates that you may commit acts of immorality but you acknowledge them and their impact upon your life. Many in the US have failed to reach this stage in regards to their country. They believe that morality is a set of scales, whereby they can feed Africa but slaughter Afghanistan and it will "even itself out". It isn't, every act is taken in isolation. In a more human context, this is like been a person who feeds the homeless all day long but then murders a few people. Are you going to jail? Of course, the morality of the West is that a single act of immorality outweighs the good done of a lifetime. We do not apply this to our countries though, it is expected that we may cause the odd genocide, violate a few basic human rights or asset strip developing countries in order to feed ourselves.
When I was growing up, I loved the US. The cultural impact that it's had on the world has been immense. From my perspective, all of the cool stuff in my life came from America. My main interest in life at that time, space, was explored by Americans - not because they needed to but because they wanted to. America is a country of dreamers and I found myself quite envious when comparing it to rainy Manchester. In fact, my life ambition was always to work at NASA, even as a cleaner, just because I could then say that I was part of it.
As I became more aware of global politics, I kept finding things that irked me about how it went about things as a nation. Over time, as more things came along, those irks became problems and those problems became massive incredulity at the hypocrisy of it all.
My main annoyance with many on 9/11 is the mass hypocrisy. You, as a nation, have been bombing the shit out of these people for decades. You have destabilised their nation through infiltrations. You have slaughtered their people, innocents and soldiers. You have armed both sides of a war to the teeth, hoping that they will blow each other apart. You have invaded their lands in both the sense of wars and placement of military bases. You have told them that their way of life is wrong and they should embrace yours. For generations, you treated them as second class citizens, second class nations and second class religious beliefs.
So they eventually hit you back. And NOW every loss of life was a tragedy that needs vengeance, whereas before it was a necessary evil? You think that the US hasn't purposely killed innocent civilians in these countries before?
As I say, basic morality. It's the ignorance of the major faults and a heightening of the great achievements, that gets to me.
9/11 was an act of war. Not by a nation or an organisation, but by a group sharing ideals. The war is now 60 years old and counting. Taking it outside of any historical context is stupid and ignorant.
