University of Alaska study on WTC Building 7 concludes it could not have come down due to fires

[Der Eisbär]

what?

how did the local news agencies know about the 9/11 plot?

Because they're reptillians bro.

 

[Guestx]

If you're trying to talk about 9/11 as though we weren't attacked by foreign terrorists then you've already shifted the goal posts into another dimension.

Well the post that you actually responded to, where I then responded to your response, was a post where I merely asked Madmick if he thought the government had FOREKNOWLEDGE that the attack was coming and then intentionally allowed it to happen.

That has nothing to do with it not being attacked by terrorists, or it even being an inside job. It just means they may have known, and then felt that whatever benefit there was to be gained from it (personal, national) was worth the cost of allowing the attack to move forward.

After all, that's pretty much the basis of any war: The cost in lives is worth whatever there is to be gained from the sacrifice.

 

[unimackpass]

Building 7 was built in 1985, was only 16 years old. There was not a blaze as seen in many of those examples. Further, it fell exactly as a controlled demolition would fall (including all of the stories inward, in a pancake collapse). None of those buildings in your video did that. In fact, many had chunks and pieces falling to the sides, and many were left with large segments still erect when all was said and done.

Some people really need to believe this stuff. Bin kicking myself for years trying to reason with this stuff. Signing off.

 

[Der Eisbär]

its kinda like global warming though...

simply because politicians are seeking to exploit global warming, does not mean they CREATED it. the same goes for 9/11. just because the event was exploited and used for justification to go into iraq, does not mean that bush did 9/11.
never let a good tragedy go to waste, as they say.

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

"Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz"

How convenient and coincidental.

 

[TSO]

Ha, apparently you need to really end to believe this stuff.

Believe what stuff?

 

[splendica]

Some people really need to believe this stuff. Bin kicking myself for years trying to reason with this stuff. Signing off.

I'm 100% pro-America, conservative, right-wing. But this is one fishy event.

Also, for many years I really believed the "conspiracy nonsense" was borderline traitorous. But one decent individual, also-right-wing, had me watch and read quite a bit of information and I started seeing the other side.

 

[Guestx]

Pretty sure that I was alive and a fully breathing adult at the time.

We went into Afghanistan immediately after 9/11.

It took two years and the "WMD case" to get into Iraq.

I mark this point as,

Well I think then that you yourself just proved that the WMD case was not enough for Americans to get behind a costly war.

 

[Rational Poster]

Well the post that you actually responded to, where I then responded to your response, was a post where I merely asked Madmick if he thought the government had FOREKNOWLEDGE that the attack was coming and then intentionally allowed it to happen.

That has nothing to do with it not being attacked by terrorists, or it even being an inside job. It just means they may have known, and then felt that whatever benefit there was to be gained from it (personal, national) was worth the cost of allowing the attack to move forward.

After all, that's pretty much the basis of any war: The cost in lives is worth whatever there is to be gained from the sacrifice.

The government had intelligence to suggest an attack was going to happen, but not when or what.

Just incompetence and a general lack of preparedness/readiness by our security forces caused it.

 

[Rational Poster]

Well I think then that you yourself just proved that the WMD case was not enough for Americans to get behind a costly war.

They weren't trying to use 9/11 to get into Iraq. That's all I proved.

If they wanted to use 9/11 reason to get into Iraq, they wouldn't have spent nearly two years making a case to do so after the fact.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Pretty sure that I was alive and a fully breathing adult at the time.

We went into Afghanistan immediately after 9/11.

It took two years and the "WMD case" to get into Iraq.

I mark this point as,

you are really... really dumb.
"In the days immediately following 9/11, the Bush Administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. A memo written by Sec. Rumsfeld dated November 27, 2001 considers a US-Iraq war. One section of the memo questions "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US-Iraq War. That administration opted instead to limit the initial military response to Afghanistan"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/building-momentum-regime-change-rumsfe

They literally started planning the invasion of iraq within days of 9/11. derp derp derp

 

[Rational Poster]

you are really... really dumb.
"In the days immediately following 9/11, the Bush Administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. A memo written by Sec. Rumsfeld dated November 27, 2001 considers a US-Iraq war. One section of the memo questions "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US-Iraq War. That administration opted instead to limit the initial military response to Afghanistan"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/building-momentum-regime-change-rumsfe

They literally started planning the invasion of iraq within days of 9/11. derp derp derp

Looks like they literally started how to make a case to go to war with Iraq.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Looks like they literally started how to make a case to go to war with Iraq.

So, you're changing your position that 9/11 had nothing to do with going to war with Iraq?

 

[Guestx]

The government had intelligence to suggest an attack was going to happen, but not when or what.

Just incompetence and a general lack of preparedness/readiness by our security forces caused it.

Yeah, I mean maybe that's totally right.

But like @splendica said, there's a lot about this event that just seems off.

There's a reason why people have latched onto 9/11 so strongly as being weird and not other terrorist events. You say that everything "weird" has been explained by the experts. But have you ever stopped to consider why there's so much shit that NEEDS explaining?

It's strange.

 

[Rational Poster]

So, you're changing your position that 9/11 had nothing to do with going to war with Iraq?

No, I think the Bush admin wanted with with Iraq before 9/11 was even a thing.

 

[Guestx]

They weren't trying to use 9/11 to get into Iraq. That's all I proved.

If they wanted to use 9/11 reason to get into Iraq, they wouldn't have spent nearly two years making a case to do so after the fact.

It started with supposed connections between Hussein, Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not totally separate events that just happened to take place around the same time.

 

[Der Eisbär]

No, I think the Bush admin wanted with with Iraq before 9/11 was even a thing.

That's all that I was saying. So wtf? How convenient that PNAC, who cheney and rumsfeld were a part of, wrote a paper the previous september talking about a new era of american imperialism and arms build up, and how a new pearl harbor like event could expedite that process.

 

[Rational Poster]

It started with supposed connections between Hussein, Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not totally separate events that just happened to take place around the same time.

Of course the Bush admin used those events to push their agenda, but the idea that they needed to fake 9/11 to get their war is fucking retarded.

 

[sloppypie]

Is that to say that no one has ever conspired to do anything, and then done it?

That's just an irrelevant argument. This 9-11 shit has been debunked repeatedly but conspiracy theorists won't give it up bc it's their life's work.

The motives alone are ridiculous. So the government had this master plan followed up by the shittiest invasion plan in the Middle East. I mean gimme a fuckin break, it's so moronic I can't even believe people buy this shit.

 

[sloppypie]

An excuse to go to war.

Wartime, at least initially, tends to boost presidential approval ratings and it also tends to lead to re-election, because the public doesn't want to change horses mid-stream. Plus, the Bush family has always had it out for Hussein.

Then you have to remember Dick Cheney's connection to Halliburton and that Halliburton managed to make a lot of money off the war.

That's just the dumbest and fuckin flimsiest excuse to orchestrate the greatest mass murder to ever be covered up.

I mean really dude, stop and think about what you are saying.

 

[unimackpass]

I'm 100% pro-America, conservative, right-wing. But this is one fishy event.

Also, for many years I really believed the "conspiracy nonsense" was borderline traitorous. But one decent individual, also-right-wing, had me watch and read quite a bit of information and I started seeing the other side.

Actually I've discussed this with many right wingers that believed, and progressives for that matter.
A reasonable friend believed this stuff from the beginning so I know the narrative inside and out. Now he looks back at it as one of "life's most embarrassing moments " and cringes if someone brings it up.

Edit- He defiantly doesn't believe it anymore .