|
Post by Ajeno on Oct 31, 2007 21:32:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Nov 12, 2007 16:37:58 GMT -5
"Don't look for zebras in a field of horses" Ockham's razor. Many ways of saying the same thing. Look, I watched the X-Files too. I WANT to believe.....I just don't. www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html
|
|
|
Post by dannyd on Nov 12, 2007 17:23:18 GMT -5
I'll watch the vids when I'm not on a 56k connection.
However, as with most conspiracy theories it probably merely relies on an appeal to ignorance for staying power. i.e 'prove that it was not an inside job'.
Motive is not a strong enough premise on which to found a conclusion. Except for the paranoid. Is there any real evidence of a conspiracy? Any evidence of attempts to cover it up?
What do the U.S have to gain out of this? They certainly didn't gain alot out of carpet bombing afghanistan. Were they just nervous of the Taliban? I hardly think the benefits of getting rid of a potential extremist threat would be worth the financial and human cost, or the risk that the conspiracy would be uncovered and the resulting fallout.
Many people argue that afghanistan was an excuse to go into Iraq. (Personally I believe that the US DID prey on the political climate in the aftemath of 9/11 and use it as a poor excuse to gain control of oil in Iraq, when they had no business linking what happened on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein).
However, to say they staged 9/11 for this farsighted purpose is still far fetched for me. The amount to lose out of such a scenario, given the position they are in is far too great. I know that conspiracies do exist, and that the U.S is possibly arrogant enough to think they could get away with such a stunt. But to murder your own civilians, in one of your great landmarks, on you own soil... even if you were evil enough, it would be far too difficult to organise without the risk of someone having a moral conscience, and then, the implications would far outweigh any supposed benefit.
Another question, if the US were trying to implicate Afghanis or Iraqis in any such scenario, why would the pilots have been mostly Saudi? The Al-Qaeda scenario fits alot better.
|
|
|
Post by Ajeno on Nov 18, 2007 11:28:48 GMT -5
The evidence is pretty compelling, but not enough to make me think it was an inside job. I do belive to some extent that there might be somewhat of a cover up going on.
CJ's Dad - Thats a good article; I think its been debunked already though. Both sides will probally continue back and fourth with this for a long time.
Dannyd -
You make some good points. Well, they said they had "Intelligence" that Saddam had "Wmd's" and that he could help Al-qaeda. Wheter or not that was true and it was enough to invade is another question. But they felt he was a threat to international security and had to be taken out of power once and for all. They said the war could be paid for in oil. If there was no oil what would be the incentive to fight a war that would end up costing 1.6 trillion in the end, ya know. Lets be honest here, what country would go through all that to liberate people? lol. I think we shouldve stayed focused on Osama and left Iraq alone.
Imo, all governments are corrupt and are capable of some horrible s***.
|
|