[zU8KbeIU]

Not my perception at all. I wasn't afraid; nor do I even know anyone that was. My chief concern was that people would get killed in Iraq and that has unfortunately been realized.

There must be a lot of chickens in Virginia.

Well, yea, people were afraid. Afraid of another Al Qaeda strike, just as bad as 9/11. And the Bush admin played on those fears to make a case for Iraq, by implying links between Saddam and Bin Laden and making it seem that as long as Saddam was in power, we'd be at risk of another 9/11. That's how they largely sold the war to people. Without 9/11 (or any other theoretical massive terrorist attack to take its place), do you think it would have been possible to go to war with Iraq?




You believe such a theory would have merit? Good Lord ... Well, more merit than the "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory. The "let it happen" conspiracy theory is much harder to prove or disprove. I don't personally believe it, myself. But, like I said, it's totally possible just not very probable. Just like it's totally possible that Obama, working as an inside Muslim terrorist, helped orchestrate it. Not very probable, of course.

[alfredtaniypnx]

Well, yea, people were afraid. Afraid of another Al Qaeda strike, just as bad as 9/11. And the Bush admin played on those fears to make a case for Iraq, by implying links between Saddam and Bin Laden and making it seem that as long as Saddam was in power, we'd be at risk of another 9/11. That's how they largely sold the war to people. Without 9/11 (or any other theoretical massive terrorist attack to take its place), do you think it would have been possible to go to war with Iraq?

They certainly used the tools of fear, lust for revenge and patriotism to stop everyone from thinking for themselfs. Basicly they offered very simple solutions for a very complex problems without considering the problems that would result from that. Well... or giving a damn what would happen afterwards.

The fact that they showed total incompetence and delusion about what would happen in Iraq after the war is borderlining crimes against humanity.

[CializCialiscsqw]

WTC7 is not right next to 1 and 2. There was an entire building between them.

The initial investigation into WTC7 stated that its collapse warranted further investigation, there wasn't a clear explanation of why it collapsed. Eventually that investigation was done by NIST. The NIST report, while answering some questions and offering some scenarios, was far from conclusive, imo. (by the way, the popular mechanics 'debunking' was one of the worst debunking jobs I've ever seen, they should be embarrassed by the lack of engineering and science they presented).

There are plenty of reasons to still remain suspicious about the collapse of WTC7, not the least of which is that it housed critical information for the SEC, the FBI and the CIA.

To my knowledge, absolutely NO investigation has ever targeted Marvin Bush (pres bush's brother), even though:
Marvin headed the security company for WTC7, 1, and 2.
Marvin sat on the board of the insurance company for WTC1and2
Marvin did not disclose his potential conflict of interest (of running the security for the complex) when he filed his paperwork to be on the insurance company board.
Marvin co-owned the airport security screening company at Dulles Airport ... with a Kuwaiti owner.

Ignoring that circumstantial evidence goes beyond incompetence. If a person with that many ties to a murder victim was never investigated, the detective ignoring that evidence would be fired.

So no, its not proof that WTC7 was intentionally destroyed, or that the bush family was involved with 9/11, but it certainly leaves a big question mark as to why a proper investigation of the biggest mass murder in US history wasn't performed. At the very least that level of incompetence should have been grounds for impeaching bush who, after all, was responsible for the safety and security of the people of the United States.

By the way, the total number of times that Marvin Bush's name comes up in the 'official 911 report'?

Zero.

And, like many people who never heard of WTC7, this is the first time I ever heard the name Marvin Bush. seems like a conspiracy theory (made up name) since I never saw the name on television.

[AblemTee]

Without 9/11 (or any other theoretical massive terrorist attack to take its place), do you think it would have been possible to go to war with Iraq?

Yes. While not a ground invasion, President Clinton attacked Iraq through the air and no one batted an eye. We went to war with Iraq -- ground forces and all -- in 1991 to liberate a small Gulf state with absolutely no security threat to America. We only stayed our hand that time due to the various political interests involved in keeping a coalition together -- not due to American timidity at removing the Iraqi government. Again, no one needed fear for personal safety to justify these actions; nor was such fear required to be a tipping point.

So, Americans were clearly willing to get behind attacking/invading Iraq for principles of resisting expansionism and enforcing cease fire/disarmament obligations. Resuming full-fledged hostilities with Iraq in 2003 was more of the same IMO. If there was any change in American attitudes, I might allow that there was a desire to move away from a perceived "kid gloves" approach to dealing with the region pre-9/11 -- but not fear. But, as I say, it's a matter of perception. I wasn't afraid, and I don't even know anyone who was (at least no one who admitted it to me).

Well, more merit than the "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory. The "let it happen" conspiracy theory is much harder to prove or disprove. I don't personally believe it, myself. But, like I said, it's totally possible just not very probable. Just like it's totally possible that Obama, working as an inside Muslim terrorist, helped orchestrate it. Not very probable, of course. Well, anything's possible. The birther and truther conspiracy theories are possible. I think for us to say a theory has "merit" there's got to be some solid evidence pointing in that direction (even if not the most probable cause). Both the ideas that Mr. Obama is some sort of Manchurian candidate and Bush let 9/11 happen are abzurd.

[loan4younow]

The only merit I could see to the controlled demolition argument would be this:

In 1993 terrorists almost succeeded in weakening the base of the WTC. A 'smart' government would have put contingency plans into place which would have planned for a more successful attack in the future. What if another bomb weakened things to the point that the WTC had to be destroyed? How could the loss of life and property in the vicinity be minimized if a future attack was more successful than the 1993 attack?

One of the best ways would have been to plan for, and wire the buildings in advance for demolition. If a future attack weakened the foundation of the building, noone would want to go in there and figure out how to wire the place for demolition after the building was extremely unsafe.

So what if the US Govt actually wired the building in advance for just such a contingency as ultimately happened on 9/11? What if it was finally determined that most of the people who could get out had gotten out, and the president decided to pre-empt a disastrous sideways collapse by ordering the contingency (demolition) plans into operation? I mean after all: This is a president who wasn't afraid of taking pre-emptive strikes, the government had reason to believe a full 10 years beforehand that terrorists would once again seek to collapse WTC1 and 2 sooner or later.

That kind of scenario explains several things:
It explains the demolition type implosion, and why the buildings didn't develop much of a sideways velocity/momentum from a non-isotropic failure.
It explains why the government would pooh-pooh such claims as "demolition", they certainly wouldn't want the public to know the govt has wired buildings for destruction.
It explains why almost everyone got out (minus a couple hundred firefighters) before the buildings collapsed.
It explains why the government did everything it could to try to prevent investigation of the event.
It explains why Marvin Bush would not be investigated, as head of security, he would probably know of the contingency plan.

It also doesn't require the president or anyone else in government to have had malicious plans at intentionally allowing the attacks, they were simply trying to minimize the potential catastrophic damage after the attacks.

The downside to the argument is: It would require a fairly large conspiracy, of about 19 people.

Oh wait, that's the number of people involved in the official conspiracy behind 9/11. Oh snap.

[Gromiaaborn]

And, like many people who never heard of WTC7, this is the first time I ever heard the name Marvin Bush. seems like a conspiracy theory (made up name) since I never saw the name on television.

You're welcome to google Marvin Bush, and even look up his SEC filings which are public record.

[corkBrobe]

If this is the whole "Marvin Bush was in charge of Dulles Airport and WTC security" thing, he was no longer a part of Securacom when 9/11 happened.

[AnetTeilor]

WTC7 is not right next to 1 and 2. There was an entire building between them.

The initial investigation into WTC7 stated that its collapse warranted further investigation, there wasn't a clear explanation of why it collapsed. Eventually that investigation was done by NIST. The NIST report, while answering some questions and offering some scenarios, was far from conclusive, imo. (by the way, the popular mechanics 'debunking' was one of the worst debunking jobs I've ever seen, they should be embarrassed by the lack of engineering and science they presented).

There are plenty of reasons to still remain suspicious about the collapse of WTC7, not the least of which is that it housed critical information for the SEC, the FBI and the CIA.

To my knowledge, absolutely NO investigation has ever targeted Marvin Bush (pres bush's brother), even though:
Marvin headed the security company for WTC7, 1, and 2.
Marvin sat on the board of the insurance company for WTC1and2
Marvin did not disclose his potential conflict of interest (of running the security for the complex) when he filed his paperwork to be on the insurance company board.
Marvin co-owned the airport security screening company at Dulles Airport ... with a Kuwaiti owner.

Ignoring that circumstantial evidence goes beyond incompetence. If a person with that many ties to a murder victim was never investigated, the detective ignoring that evidence would be fired.

So no, its not proof that WTC7 was intentionally destroyed, or that the bush family was involved with 9/11, but it certainly leaves a big question mark as to why a proper investigation of the biggest mass murder in US history wasn't performed. At the very least that level of incompetence should have been grounds for impeaching bush who, after all, was responsible for the safety and security of the people of the United States.

By the way, the total number of times that Marvin Bush's name comes up in the 'official 911 report'?

Zero.

You know that WTC 6 was completely destroyed when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, right?

As far as the collapse of WTC 7, the building was significantly damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 (there are pictures aplenty on the net), and it burned for several hours - with absolutely no firefighting efforts - before it collapsed.

To forestall the next conspiracy theory - the reason the fire in WTC7 went unfought was twofold:

1. No water.
2. The people who would have fought it were dead.

As far as the pre-wired demolition theory, absent some proof it is readily dismissed out of hand.

Which leaves me with only one thing undone in this thread:



Matt

[AnIInWon]

As far as the pre-wired demolition theory, absent some proof it is readily dismissed out of hand.

Where is your proof of 19 Arab Hijackers?
Because the government posted pictures of them?

Really?

The only 'proof' of anything is that airplanes hit the WTC complex and that a lot of people died.

Just because the government doesn't talk about something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Obviously it doesn't mean it DOES happen either.

Personally, given the gigantic liability that the US Government has in failing to prevent 9/11, I trust what they say on the topic very very little. For God's sake, the official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy story.

Maybe you trust the media instead. The media that parrots what the government tells it everytime there's something that involves 'national security'. As an example, the media was literally cheering bush into invading Iraq. And we see how accurate bush's claims about Iraq were after-the-fact.

[diemeareendup]

Where is your proof of 19 Arab Hijackers?
Because the government posted pictures of them?

Really?

The only 'proof' of anything is that airplanes hit the WTC complex and that a lot of people died.

Just because the government doesn't talk about something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Obviously it doesn't mean it DOES happen either.

Personally, given the gigantic liability that the US Government has in failing to prevent 9/11, I trust what they say on the topic very very little.

Great point.

Invisible UFO's did it with directed energy plasma spaghetti beam weapons.

You've never heard the government discuss that, so it must be true.

[Keeriewof]

Although as I think about it, it might not have been invisible UFOs.

I've never heard the government talk about The Underminer. Apparently, that means he could have done it....

[Goalseexere]

You know that WTC 6 was completely destroyed when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, right?

Apparently less completely destroyed than WTC7:

[ionitiesk]

Invisible Nazi UFO's Matt, get it right.

[nickayary]

Although as I think about it, it might not have been invisible UFOs.

I've never heard the government talk about The Underminer. Apparently, that means he could have done it....

So the government tells you a conspiracy story for which they have a huge liability problem, and you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I'm glad you're so trustful of your government.

[dhYTvlAv]

Apparently less completely destroyed than WTC7:

The point being that it didn't shield WTC7 from the debris from the collaps, which the government has never denied was caused by two hefty janitors eating particularly spicy Stromboli the night before....

[anconueys]

Where is your proof of 19 Arab Hijackers?
Because the government posted pictures of them?

Really?

The only 'proof' of anything is that airplanes hit the WTC complex and that a lot of people died.

Just because the government doesn't talk about something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Well, the German government has evidence of the 19 hijackers, as well. And they had no reason to push for an Iraq war. There's also the accounts of the flight instructors that taught them, along with security footage of them boarding the planes on that day. Along with one of those campy Al Qaeda videos of one of the hijackers making his martyr speech, and Osama praising them after the attack, etc.

[intifatry]

So the government tells you a conspiracy story for which they have a huge liability problem, and you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I'm glad you're so trustful of your government.

The government's version is every bit as credible as the secret pre-wired demolition theory.

Except there's actual evidence to support the government's theory, whereas not an iota of support has been presented for the secret demolitions theory.

Anyway, I see where this thread is headed (the same wasteland of idiocy the previous "9/11 was a conspiracy" threads have gone), so I am going to cease expending the effort to follow it any further.

Cheers.

Matt

[Narkeere]

I find it interesting how many rightwingers put their complete and utter faith in the US Government.

Well, except for the part about the government having a contingency plan for another WTC attack after 1993.

Really? You consider UFO's to be right up there with contingency plans following a nearly-successful attack?

Ok, I'm done, you can lead a horse to water.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying those things HAPPENED. But they are a possibility. Basically we will never know since a proper investigation was never performed.

[QYD8eQ8F]

So the government tells you a conspiracy story for which they have a huge liability problem, and you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I'm glad you're so trustful of your government.

Same line of reasoning could be used to support the birther cause..

[siklop]

Except there's actual evidence to support the government's theory, whereas not an iota of support has been presented for the secret demolitions theory.

I'm unaware of any evidence which isn't extremely easy to fabricate to support their theory. A couple of pictures from gas-station cameras and a couple of singed passports. Shit, I can fabricate some pictures showing C4 wired to girder beams and publish them as proof. I don't have any liability problems with 9/11 though. The government does.