First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
9/11 - who caused it : Terrorists or Politicians?
1164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / the darker side o...
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 1/27/08
There already been many 9/11 controversies out there. Heck, by now, most people might even forget 9/11. but it was on that fateful day that Bush's plans set into motion. All the fuss he made on his "War on Terror" has mostly died out, but the aftermath of that tragedy still causes problems till this day.

Firstly, according to the ""RESEARCH"" done by the committee:

the jet fuel from the planes melted the steel frames supporting the building and caused them to collapse
now anyone with a IQ of 60 can tell that all that "research" is a large pile of bullcrap. If anyone SAW what really happened, the respective planes rammed into the towers and after a mere 3second interval the towers started to collapse, very much like a implosion seen in triggered demolition of buildings. if jet fule can "melt" meter-wide steel bars in 3seconds, from the top floor right down to the basement, then balls to nuclear bombs, just send a dozen passenger airbuses to 'melt' a country to smithereens.

Secondly, any blind redneck patriot might argue that, all that scheming and the massacre of hundereds of US citizens was not worth anything. but infact it WAS.
•Question•What buildings were destroyed on 9/11?
•Answer•The World ""TRADE"" Centre
By taking out one of the main centre of commerce in the world, the US government might have gained millions beyond belief, or maybe just a greedy politician and his official lackeys did. If Al-Quaeda wanted to ram planes into buildings just to get their boats floating, then why PARTICULARLY the world trade centre?? although the Pentagon was "struck with malice" as well, it suffered no heavy damage, as opposed to the destruction of two enitre sky-scrappers and the loss of many lives. Terrorist could have even vandalised national monuments, like Mount Rushmore or maybe even the White House, but they chose mere 'buildings' that could have been rebuilt after some time and whose loss wouldnt have demoralized the nation for years to come.
Moreover, the US boasts of having the best state-of-the-art AA-Gunfighters, AA-Gunships, AA-missiles, Nuclear prevention probes, etc, etc, etc...but they could not take out "passenger" planes even after the direness of the situation was realized.

Thirdly, not only did the incident burn the fires of patriotism in the nation's heart, but it also gave Bush the momentum he required to carry out his future plans. unless 9/11 had not taken place, his "War on Terror" couldnt have happen, which in turn wouldnt have allowed him to invade Iraq for its oil (jokes' on him, he just found sand instead of oil). It even gave him the popularity to get elected for a second term and if he found oil, then who knows...maybe even a third term as President.
He played on the people's good interest and caused the deaths of all those unfortunate people in the Twin Towers. he played his cards like a texan would play his poker. shame on him for all that he has done.

Screw some pussy Al-Queda wannabe terrorists for the "terror" they wrought on this world, the politicians running the country can commit any crime they want and then run away scot-free. they are more dangerous than terrorists who dont get funded by us in order to wreak havoc on us.

Any other views on the matter?
Posted 1/27/08
idk i think its just probably a reason we can invade middle east. bush was all like yes destroy the buildings and blame it on the middle eastern people and then we go invade and take their oil. ITS BRILLIANT. bush is a fantastic president *hint Sarcasm*
21995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
It was the terrorists. We do know that however it was Alqaida (horribly misspelled) we were against not Saddam. If I remember correctly alqaida was actually opposed to Saddam, but no we invaded Iraq and got ourselves into a s**tload of trouble. There never were any WMD's in there. And anyone who claims that we origionaly entered to usurp a dictator is wrong. While I have no idea what the motives of entering Iraq are for sure.

Anyway back on topic. I believe the Research was correct because of how long the towers stood before collapsing. What happened was that it blew away the insulation that protected the internal structure from the tempuratures and a fire was started. It was so hot that it actually did melt the skelton of the building.

Also how can you say that their target was suspicious. 3000 people died. They were the highest towers in New York. So tall in fact, it would take 2 extra minutes for the sun to set on them than the rest of New York. And how can you say we are not demoralized? After all these years talking about the towers has a profound impact on people.

Lastly there was a plane heading toward the whitehouse. It crashed in Pennsylvania because the passengers attacked the terrorists.
531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
terrorists did it. but i think the gross incompetence of leadership is also a major crime. the attack was then used to create the war on terror which is like declaring war on your shadow, also the patriot act, which takes away all your rights, and an invasion of afghanistan for revenge, the "hunt" for osama and an oil pipeline. and an invasion of iraq, for oil.


and now they are trying to use the same damn bullcrap to go into iran.
3741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Well It is played on both parts. We should have been more well prepared and it wouldn't have happened... however, the terrorists took part in the action.
7718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / Florida, US
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Well it's logic that the person who directly killed the thousands of people were the terrorists who planned it and/or were on board the 3 planes. No matter what caused me or influenced me to do anything bad, I would be the one who was ultimately responsible for my actions as long as I did it of my own free will.

It's not that thousands of people died that day that makes this a historical event. The fact that this wasn't a military attack but an attack on civilians; and the fact that this was the first major foreign attack US soil besides Pearl Harbor makes it a big deal. I believe that the government (especially the security council) did not assess the situation properly to react to certain attacks. <- Yet a terrorist attack is something that would be difficult to prevent since it honestly is easy to hijack a plane with accomplices and a thought out plan.
The biggest problem within the government was its foreign affairs in the mid-east. Were we wrong to be involved in choosing sides in the region? That's a matter of opinion. But it undoubtedly resulted in hostile anti-US attitude and behavior leading up to these attacks.
And it's also possible that there might have been conspiracies for it to happen just like some people say.
But I'm not even going to try to jump to conclusions since political experts that research this as their career can't even find a conclusive answer. Maybe we'll find the answer and people that are interested should research it more to get closer to the truth. But I can easily say that I'm not qualified to claim that the government "did" a poor job nor had a part in it.
I don't like how people claim to know what happened backed up with newspaper/internet articles and scenes from the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart.
47831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Wow, we're having a discussion on this when Osama Bin Laden already admitted that it was his plan to have a terrorist attack in New York 1 or 2 months ago
Posted 1/27/08

simplistic_paranoia wrote:

Well It is played on both parts. We should have been more well prepared and it wouldn't have happened... however, the terrorists took part in the action.


well we cant really do anything about it tho the ppl didnt know it was coming or else they would try their best to prevent it....it was a sad event ...cause a dead of way too many innocent lives
6203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/27/08

n_n303 wrote:

i think it was Bush and Politicians, just an excuse to invade the middle east so they can take control over oil, money and such. Honestly how the hell did it go from bin ladin to Saddam Hussein?? (even though i'm glad that asshole is gone)


Saddamn was supposedly affilated with the Al Qaeda and was thought to be for some time (92-2003). He was suspected to have had wmd's and missiles set course for U.S. and that was reason enough to send troops and rummage through Iraq. When we got into a huge clusterfuck not finding the missiles, it was great time to change motive and say "Hey we're not here for wmd's, we're here to overthrow your dictator and take out your evil terrorist!". Thanks to our Capitalistic foreign policies, we were able to get oil out of the whole mess while we exterminate their "terrorists". Lul what, find Binladen yet?

As for conspiracies, lol don't get your hopes high up for overthrowing him. I don't think he would give a shit now since his term is almost over. Even if it was a conspiracy, he would probably be laughing his ass off right now since he got his oil.

As for thinking too much into, no we're not. Its a brief discussion, theres never too much thinking into it.
6203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Of course its a question that can be answered. I bet CIA got all the information in their pockets
3284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / seoul ^_^
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
you guyz all voted for bush... now ur complaining
thank god i dont live in america
1573 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
AL QaeDa..... Muslim Extremists..... really Americans were terrified that day, they always thought they were invincible(no offense), but it happened....
138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Both sides are involved in this event. about the WTCs the way the building fell down is similarity to the way some expert in explosion would demolish a building. I saw a video back in high school, that was talking about the kind of steel that were use to build the WTCs. and in the video they also said that the plane crashing into the building wouldn't be enough to collapse.

Now if the US government didn't get involve in Middle Eastern Countries affairs none of these would have happened. But the quest of OIL is a tough field. the US dollar is backed up by OIL while most of the countries are backed by GOLD.

but i have another question, what do you call a terrorist?
1836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / NJ, USA
Offline
Posted 1/27/08

trenplix wrote:
I saw a video back in high school, that was talking about the kind of steel that were use to build the WTCs. and in the video they also said that the plane crashing into the building wouldn't be enough to collapse.


"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

taken from the Popular Mechanics web site. here's the link to the rest of their study on 9/11 myths....
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Posted 1/27/08

wasted_again wrote:

There already been many 9/11 controversies out there. Heck, by now, most people might even forget 9/11. but it was on that fateful day that Bush's plans set into motion. All the fuss he made on his "War on Terror" has mostly died out, but the aftermath of that tragedy still causes problems till this day.

Firstly, according to the ""RESEARCH"" done by the committee:

the jet fuel from the planes melted the steel frames supporting the building and caused them to collapse
now anyone with a IQ of 60 can tell that all that "research" is a large pile of bullcrap. If anyone SAW what really happened, the respective planes rammed into the towers and after a mere 3second interval the towers started to collapse, very much like a implosion seen in triggered demolition of buildings. if jet fule can "melt" meter-wide steel bars in 3seconds, from the top floor right down to the basement, then balls to nuclear bombs, just send a dozen passenger airbuses to 'melt' a country to smithereens.

Secondly, any blind redneck patriot might argue that, all that scheming and the massacre of hundereds of US citizens was not worth anything. but infact it WAS.
•Question•What buildings were destroyed on 9/11?
•Answer•The World ""TRADE"" Centre
By taking out one of the main centre of commerce in the world, the US government might have gained millions beyond belief, or maybe just a greedy politician and his official lackeys did. If Al-Quaeda wanted to ram planes into buildings just to get their boats floating, then why PARTICULARLY the world trade centre?? although the Pentagon was "struck with malice" as well, it suffered no heavy damage, as opposed to the destruction of two enitre sky-scrappers and the loss of many lives. Terrorist could have even vandalised national monuments, like Mount Rushmore or maybe even the White House, but they chose mere 'buildings' that could have been rebuilt after some time and whose loss wouldnt have demoralized the nation for years to come.
Moreover, the US boasts of having the best state-of-the-art AA-Gunfighters, AA-Gunships, AA-missiles, Nuclear prevention probes, etc, etc, etc...but they could not take out "passenger" planes even after the direness of the situation was realized.

Thirdly, not only did the incident burn the fires of patriotism in the nation's heart, but it also gave Bush the momentum he required to carry out his future plans. unless 9/11 had not taken place, his "War on Terror" couldnt have happen, which in turn wouldnt have allowed him to invade Iraq for its oil (jokes' on him, he just found sand instead of oil). It even gave him the popularity to get elected for a second term and if he found oil, then who knows...maybe even a third term as President.
He played on the people's good interest and caused the deaths of all those unfortunate people in the Twin Towers. he played his cards like a texan would play his poker. shame on him for all that he has done.

Screw some pussy Al-Queda wannabe terrorists for the "terror" they wrought on this world, the politicians running the country can commit any crime they want and then run away scot-free. they are more dangerous than terrorists who dont get funded by us in order to wreak havoc on us.

Any other views on the matter?


you should watch this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.