The Truth Behind 9/11

[Rog]

Terrorism is not a modern phenomena but it has certainly been refined in recent years.

 

But what actually IS terrorism? On the basis that least is frequently most I like the Princeton definition ---

 

“The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”

 

To my mind there are three key words contained therein. The first is ‘civilians’ and the second is ‘threat’ and the third is ‘fear’.

 

I suggest that a terrorist act can take many forms and that an actual outrage culminating in the disgusting attack against the twin towers (not to mention the London Bombings of 7/7) is simply the physical means of establishing the bona fides of a terrorist organisation, with the most of the damage and instillation of fear actually coming from the subsequent exploitation of what has been done in various ways including changes in the law, as well as the creation of an atmosphere of distrust of the government by the spreading of lies and conspiracy theories.

 

The heart breaker for me is that so often it is groups with no connection with the terrorist groups who launch conspiracy theories in order to further their OWN political aims.

 

Such is certainly the case with the crap being presented as ‘hidden truths’ by those either with a vested interest in bringing down the government, or the remainder who are simply mad, bad, or sad and who just love to display their paranoia.

 

It is this last group who are often in turn exploited by the original terrorists or their fellow travelers to add further ‘authenticity’, as well as those others who inherently dislike some aspect about the government or, especially in the case of the US, the whole nation and its people.

 

The truth about 9/11?

 

Very simple.

 

A party of islamic terrorists obtained sufficient skills to steer aircraft into ground targets. They in concert hijacked aircraft on a day with a date that already resonated with the American public (911 – the same as our 999 telephone number) and committed the terrible acts that they did.

 

The ‘it was a government put up job’ story? Utter rubbish.

 

The stories that say so are nothing other than the ranting of the mentally disturbed, the exploitation of the situation to cause even MORE damage to a nation, or propaganda being put about to gain political status by detracting from the government in office by those with political ambition of their own.

 

Although it’s a good policy to keep a healthy scepticism in this life, to ignore the blatantly obvious in favour of believong a story written by someone who has obviously first decided on the outcome that they wanted, and then cherry-picked from the facts to come up with a storyline that (seems to) support the pre-determined end result is simply being silly.

[SugarBee]

Thank you Rog!

[Lonan3]

Although it’s a good policy to keep a healthy scepticism in this life, to ignore the blatantly obvious in favour of believong a story written by someone who has obviously first decided on the outcome that they wanted, and then cherry-picked from the facts to come up with a storyline that (seems to) support the pre-determined end result is simply being silly.

 

Conspiracy theorists are exactly that - 'theorists.' They are people who extract some insignificant detail from the evidence, use it to formulate a theory and then, as Rog says, cherry-pick other items to support that theory whilst ignoring any uncomfortable facts that detract from it.

In terms of the 9/11 incident, the most worrying factor was the inability of the country's leaders to react to the threat. It was almost as if everyone 'froze' in disbelief that anyone would dare to attack them on their own soil. No one seemed to have any real grasp of what was happening or any idea of how to deal with it. Leadership, on that day, was most notable by it's absence - and it no longer matters how loudly Bush banged his war drums afterwards, because the simple fact remains that he failed to show any of the qualities required by a leader.

Although it was on a smaller scale, I'd suggest that the response to the attacks on London was, by comparison, much more efficient, immediate and determined.

[Crozza]

.

[SugarBee]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp

[bollocks]

 

 

Although it’s a good policy to keep a healthy scepticism in this life, to ignore the blatantly obvious in favour of believong a story written by someone who has obviously first decided on the outcome that they wanted, and then cherry-picked from the facts to come up with a storyline that (seems to) support the pre-determined end result is simply being silly.

 

Conspiracy theorists are exactly that - 'theorists.' They are people who extract some insignificant detail from the evidence, use it to formulate a theory and then, as Rog says, cherry-pick other items to support that theory whilst ignoring any uncomfortable facts that detract from it.

In terms of the 9/11 incident, the most worrying factor was the inability of the country's leaders to react to the threat. It was almost as if everyone 'froze' in disbelief that anyone would dare to attack them on their own soil. No one seemed to have any real grasp of what was happening or any idea of how to deal with it. Leadership, on that day, was most notable by it's absence - and it no longer matters how loudly Bush banged his war drums afterwards, because the simple fact remains that he failed to show any of the qualities required by a leader.

Although it was on a smaller scale, I'd suggest that the response to the attacks on London was, by comparison, much more efficient, immediate and determined.

 

Again, I could say exactly the same thing about you. There's a film coming out called Syriana. You should make it your business to watch it. It explains why the US is so fascinated by the middle eastern oil reserves in a brutally honest way. Hopefully this film will make you understand what most of us are trying to get across. If they fuck you over with one lie, then surely they'll fuck you over with another.

[TheTool]

Why were we not told the full reasons why Bin laden did his so called attack on the US ?

 

I am still not even sure why this guy had a beef with america.

 

The USA is too reliant on Oil its a fact and the US reverves will run out in about 45 years.

 

So what does america do when they loose the oil ?

 

I want to know why people are so scared of a guy who is probably dead by now or is hiding in a cave or tunnel.

 

The whole basis of a war on terror is based on a pack of lies and they even said the information was wrong, does that not mean the whole war was illegal ?

 

I am glad they did oust saddam he is a lunatic but where is it going to stop.

[The Old Git]

There's a film coming out called Syriana. You should make it your business to watch it. It explains why the US is so fascinated by the middle eastern oil reserves in a brutally honest way. Hopefully this film will make you understand what most of us are trying to get across. If they fuck you over with one lie, then surely they'll fuck you over with another.

 

Ah, Hollywood.

 

Do you believe their version of everything? Braveheart? The upcoming Battle of Britian film? The capturing of the U-Boat enigma cypher?

[Crozza]

.

[bollocks]

There's a film coming out called Syriana. You should make it your business to watch it. It explains why the US is so fascinated by the middle eastern oil reserves in a brutally honest way. Hopefully this film will make you understand what most of us are trying to get across. If they fuck you over with one lie, then surely they'll fuck you over with another.

 

Ah, Hollywood.

 

Do you believe their version of everything? Braveheart? The upcoming Battle of Britian film? The capturing of the U-Boat enigma cypher?

 

Dickhead. Its obvious to anyone that this film is politically charged, but don't assume that i'm as ignorant as you are and believe exactly what I get fed.

 

This film blatently exposes the reasons why the US 'needs' to control the middle east's oil supply. It explains how Americans are not really dependent on oil from the Middle East, (US intelligence confirm this as the US itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources such as West Africa and the Western hemisphere). The reason the U.S. is so involved in the Middle East is about control of the oil, not access to the oil.

 

In the 1940s, US planners recognized that (in their words) Gulf energy resources are "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." Naturally, they intended to control it ... That's a very powerful lever of world control, quite apart from the profits that comes from it. And the US probably doesn't intend to access the oil of Iraq; it intends to use primarily safer Atlantic basin resources for itself (Western Hemisphere, West Africa). But to control the oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect.

 

Quite apart from yielding "profits beyond the dreams of avarice," as one leading history of the oil industry puts the matter, the region still remains "a stupendous source of strategic power," a lever of world control. Control over Gulf energy reserves provides "veto power" over the actions of rivals, as the leading planner George Kennan pointed out half a century ago. Europe and Asia understand very well, and have long been seeking independent access to energy resources.

 

Oil's Critical Leverage

"Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well." 1990, the then oil man, Dick Cheney

 

"America has major strategic and economic interests in the Middle East that are dictated by the region's vast energy supplies. Not only does America benefit economically from the relatively low costs of Middle Eastern oil, but America's security role in the region gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hegemonic Quicksand The National Interest Winter 2003/04 http://representativepress.blogspot.com/20...ge-whoever.html

 

Liberal or conservative, any asshole can see how this is so fucking wrong.

[The Old Git]

This film blatently exposes the reasons why the US 'needs' to control the middle east's oil supply. It explains how Americans are not really dependent on oil from the Middle East, (US intelligence confirm this as the US itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources such as West Africa and the Western hemisphere). The reason the U.S. is so involved in the Middle East is about control of the oil, not access to the oil.

 

The film tells you exactly what the writer, producer and director want it to tell you

[Crozza]

.

[The Old Git]

I like your sig - "My mind is made up. Don't give me facts, they only confuse me."

 

Yes, it is good, isn't it? I've had it a while now.

 

Of course, it's just a sig and means fuck all in real life

[bollocks]

This film blatently exposes the reasons why the US 'needs' to control the middle east's oil supply. It explains how Americans are not really dependent on oil from the Middle East, (US intelligence confirm this as the US itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources such as West Africa and the Western hemisphere). The reason the U.S. is so involved in the Middle East is about control of the oil, not access to the oil.

 

The film tells you exactly what the writer, producer and director want it to tell you

 

Of course it does, and they make an interesting point. It coincides with many other sources of information regarding this subject.

[TheTool]

What ever happened to having an open mind i know i have always tried to view both sides and make a my mind up that way.

 

The way the US government fails to win any argument it makes, does nothing to win me over.