I thought about mentioning that, and we can choose with our votes over time, but how much choice, effectively, did we as individuals have in the matter after 9/11? Absolutely null. Nothing even comparable to choosing to drive a car.
Not sure whether it is more funny or sad, but those of us who said as much at the time were pretty soundly criticized by the overwhelming majority who wanted to rush into war just to kick somebody’s ass, and gleefully cast off our civil liberties because the administraion must know something to justify what it proposed.
Now you hear so many people criticizing our invasion of Iraq and security theater, while refusing to acknowledge that they wholeheartedly supported such efforts such a short time ago…
You can argue with the exact numbers but it seems like about 50,000 people died of starvation on 9/10 and 9/11 and 9/12 and 9/13 and …
That’s not to deny the tragic and horror of those directly involved in 9/11 but in the bigger picture of human pain it was a blip on the graph.
Unless of course it was a demolition job set up to look like a terrorist attack. Consider- the 2nd tower was hit about 30 minutes after the first- why were there no fighter jets scrambled? They were occupied on ‘training missions’. Why did the towers fall in a manner perfectly characteristic with a demolition, and not at all like a genuine building collapse? Why was the debris carted away and melted down (in China) before the FBI could examine it? It’s the biggest crime scene in our history, and we threw away all the evidence immediately?!?
Why would Bush and Cheney not testify about the matter under oath, and not individually? How did the third collapsed building of 9/11,World Trade Center 7, fall down- in exactly the manner of a planned demolition- when it suffered no direct hits? And why the hell is WTC7 not even mentioned at all in the 9/11 commission report, let alone it’s collapse explained?
So- in a few hours 3 buildings in downtown New York fall in exactly the same way as each other, which happens to be exactly the same as you’d see in a deliberate demolition. Only 2 were hit by planes. And the investigation seems, well, fishy. I can’t say for sure it was a setup, but all these years later it still strikes me as extremely suspicious.
As for the OP, heck yes we overreacted. Comparing to Pearl Harbor- 9/11 had comparable casualties, yes. BUT- the Japanese had a mobilized military that had already captured half of China, most of the Pacific, and had the intention and means of continuing all the way to Australia if they weren’t stopped. Oh, and their best buddies were the Nazis. The terrorists had… jack shit?
Still I think no response would have been taken as an outrage. But we’ve basically reacted as if this is WWIII-lite, only we’re the only ones fielding a military.
There it is!
Here’s a story that came out just today: Crusading in Iraq
Maybe not perfect proof, but it supports the assertion.
SenorBeef- are you making fun of me?
I sure hope so. You certainly deserve it.
To tell you the truth, no, this comparison and the others you made are all absurd. While deaths from suicide and smoking can be tragic, those deaths are primarily the result of choices people make themselves, and that’s a fundamentally different thing from being killed in an attack by someone else. Here, you’re comparing foreseeable but preventable accidents over the course of a year to something that happened in one day.
There were many parts of the response to September 11th that were moronic and many that were flawed. That’s not a particularly radical suggestion. People did say it at the time. There was bitter opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act at the time, and not only that, there was objection to the fly-by-night way in which it was pact. The intelligence clusterfuck needed to be overhauled, but it probably still does, and I doubt Homeland Security does the job. Same thing with the Afghan war in all likelihood: terrible execution.
Saying the attacks “shouldn’t have been that big a deal”- no, sorry. You’re employing hindsight from almost eight years after the fact and then saying people should have the benefit of the same period of years. You’re reminding me that some of us were right about the above being bad ideas at the time, though, and that we’re not gloating about it enough. 
Perhaps. SDMB is there to fight ignorance, so what am I missing? I’ve always been deeply suspicious of the whole 9/11 affair and it’s consequences. I find a lot of arguments to support my suspicions. I’m new to the board, so there’s probably plenty of threads about all this by now which I haven’t read. Maybe a link?
Yes, my position borders on absurd. So does the situation.
Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt once and only once. If you come back with but but but as if you were a motorboat I’m done here, because frankly I’ve danced this dance too many dozens of times here, on other boards, over email, and in real life, and I just don’t have much patience for it anymore.
First of all, collapses don’t fall like demolitions, demolitions fall like collapses. They don’t “blow up” buildings, they simply destroy support structures and let gravity do almost all of the work. That’s why the collapses on 9/11 “looked like demolitions.” Any demolitions man can tell you this; please look in the phone book and call one if you have doubts.
Secondly, you’re right - World Trade Center 7 was not hit by an airplane, but it was hit by a huge, multi-ton flaming chunk of WTC1. Video can be seen here, among other places. It is implausible to the point of absurdity that anyone could’ve insured that flaming chunk of the collapsing tower 1 would hit tower 7, thus providing an alibi.
And finally, the reason World Trade Center 7 wasn’t mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report is simple: it wasn’t the target of a terrorist attack.
Seriously, you’re the first person who has ever given me a straight answer to this.
I’ll have to think about it.
Yes, the collapses of the Twin Towers looked like all the support structures had been destroyed.
Yes. It did. Because they had been. By airplanes.
Pancake theory?
Ah, and the reductio ad absurdum begins. Watch this if you’re honestly curious.
Hours and hours and hours of reading on the topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories - and specifically pointing out objectively and scientifically how ridiculous they all are - can be found here. If you reply back in 15 minutes saying “yeah but but but but??”, it’ll be a pretty good sign you didn’t read any of it and aren’t really interested in the truth.
Airplanes destroyed the support structures of the core? Of the core at every floor of the building?
They didn’t need to do that; some were broken by the impact, others softened by the heat of the fires. Once the collapse got going, the momentum involved would break anything still intact lower down. They were designed to hold the passive weight of a building; not the momentum of a collapsing one.
[Long reply deleted. Forget it, I’ve got a question instead.] Do you really believe that the support structure would have to be destroyed at every floor for a skyscraper like the World Trade Center to be brought down? You really believe that, or was this a spurious question? Which? Do you believe that demolitions are carried out this way?
Well, they’d have to be destroyed for the building to come straight down. Otherwise they’d provide resistance. considerable resistance. You’d get a lot of things taking a sidestep and flying through the air instead of through a path of resistance. In a demolition you do try to destroy all the support structures to prevent parts flying into the street, etc.
I’m honest to goodness trying to figure out if you’re genuinely this ignorant, you’re deliberately pushing an agenda without regard for the truth, or your ego is just steadfastly defending itself from anything that might force you to change your mind.
This is just so . . . wrong . . . it’s hard to know where to even start.
Seriously, do you really believe what you’re saying?
Do you really think they should’ve toppled over like trees?
Do you really think there wasn’t stuff flying into the street?
