Are you under the impression that rigging a building to collapse with controlled explosions is easy? Something one could do casually with no-one noticing? Please give us some idea of how many bombs you think were needed to take down both towers, how they were planted, and how none of the thousands of people who worked in the towers noticed their installation.
So I take it you have no sensible response? I’m not saying there were- I don’t know and I really don’t give a shit about 9-11. I’m just saying where is your “demonstrable proof” that there were not explosives at the base, where is your demonstrable proof the US was not aware of the event beforehand? If you don’t have that, how can you call a person who expresses reasonable doubt a piece of shit and filth? Why not do the honorable thing and apologize to NightRabbit for going a tad bit overboard?
If someone came here and said no planes hit the buildings, I’d be in your corner, but youre lumping NR in with the wackos and that’s off base.
You don’t need proof, absent any evidence to support such a theory, or even a description of a scenario that might support such a theory.
Who is “the US?” What did they know? That 20 Islamic terrorists were going to fly planes into buildings in NY and Washington? And they did nothing? Good Lord, man, it’s absurd on its face.
Ask me a sensible question.
After reading this, one has to conclude there was either a tremendous level of incompetence, or a conspiracy of some kind.
I personally see incompetence. I can understand why someone would find it preferable to believe that our leaders are not actually this stupid, and therefore suggest more is at play than is obvious. I don’t agree with them, given the overwhelming evidence to support the incompetence conclusion, but I understand the need to believe our leaders are capable.
I thought I did, at post #181. Please be so kind as to address it.
The claim in question is that “the US” knew beforehand that the terrorists were going to fly planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and presumably the White House, and did nothing to stop them. I see nothing in your link to support that claim.
It ain’t exactly news that the Bush administration is incompetent.
I’m not saying its true, or even likely, just why is it inconceivable? I mean, in case the planes didn’t cause the buildings to the fall, and you wanted a back-up to ensure they fell. Theoretically couldn’t you just have parked several cars in the lower level and made them go off together?
If I’m wrong this next bit, I apologize, but wasn’t it theorized that better placement of the bomb the first time they bombed the tower would have possibly gotten a huge amount of destruction, and wasn’t that only one truck?
And didn’t someone mention upthread how before someone got curious and investigated, the whole idea of Watergate would have been viewed as absurd?
Why bother with the planes? Sounds like the back-up plan was a lot more reliable, and orders of magnitude easier to pull off.
In case the bombs at the base didn’t have the desired effect?
I’m not saying any of my theories are true, all I’m saying is why is it inconceivable that the current adminstration knew this was going to happen and chose not to stop it, as it happening would give them support for their wars?
Many agree that Dubya and friends invented proof of WMD’s to go to war with Iraq, why is it so unfathomable they would allow another act to go through for similar reasons?
Yes, it would’ve been a great contingency plan. Problem is, it would’ve left a lot of evidence behind, which doesn’t exist in reality.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say 9/11 is probably the single most scrutinized event in human history. It’d have its Woodward and Bernstein by now if there was something to it.
What evidence can you pull from the remnants of a collapsed 110 story building, besides dust?
If the US govt. had active involvement, yes I agree it probably would have been uncovered, but what evidence would there be if they weren’t participants but instead merely allowed it to happen?
How 'bout because Bush had the authority to go into Iraq without 9/11? Why risk getting caught? He and his co-conspirators would be executed. The risk wasn’t worth the reward.
So you’re saying they could flawlessly execute 9/11 but couldn’t plant WMDs in Iraq? One is orders of magnitude easier than the other.
Fuck, why do I keep bothering with you? You really are dumb, aren’t you?
Allowing something to happen is very different from being an active participant. Planting bombs yes would get you executed, if caught. Ignoring warnings and letting something happen would get you nothing- the same explanations C. Rice has used for ignoring the warning signs would still be valid and reasonable.
Of course it isn’t inconceivable. You just conceived it. But that’s a bit of a technicality, don’t you think?
Who in the administration knew? How did they know? How many knew? Can you seriously suggest that everyone who knew about the attacks is so morally bankrupt as to stand by and watch their fellow citizens die so horribly, and so needlessly? That not one CIA operative, or State Department employee, or anyone who knew about this spilled the beans? It may not be inconceivable, but it is incredible, and not worthy of speculation.
I am confident that if Bush knew about it and did nothing it would get him impeached, with a 100% voting rate for conviction.
And again, we’re not talking about ignoring warnings. We’re talking about specifically knowing it was going to happen, and doing nothing, in order to further a political agenda. What kind of monster do you think Bush is?
Are you trolling?
You fail to grasp the concept of burden of proof, and after it’s pointed out to you, you fail again. (posts 161 and 182)
You condescendingly insult the FDNY - who ARE brothers, by the way - in post 171.
And now you want me to believe not only that you are dumb enough to think that the collapsed WTC buildings left no evidence - but that you don’t even realize what I’m talking about when I comment on how absurd this notion is.
You’re either the dumbest fucking human being ever capable of using a computer, or you’re a troll.
Explosives don’t like fire or shock and the amount of fine particles of concrete produced would have required the equilvalent of 185 tons of TNT per tower. That’s a hell of a lot of explosives.
3200 in the towers, 4000 in Iraq, what’s the difference? Aren’t those in Iraq dying horrible and needless deaths? Plus, you make it sound like a hundred people HAD to have known about something like that- do you honestly have insight as to who gets info like that? Is it one person, or a thousand? So you can’t really comment on the scale of the cover-up it would take, if you don’t how many people get certain intelligence, right?