9-11

[A Deo et Rege]

Happy anniversary, over the years I have come across many conspiracy theories and I was just wondering if anyone on this sit has heard about these theories and do you believe them to have any factual backing.

[Rasta_Man]

I personally think that the Bush Administration knew about the attack pryor before it happend. I also think that they used this inccodent to destroy secret government document(pentagon and world trade center building #7). Also used 9/11 to invade Iraq.

[babybitch]

i am so the bsame way.. i think they deff. knew about it nd i think they used it to cover up sum ting or destroy it....so yeas i am so wit ya rusta man...

[A Deo et Rege]

I agree on one thing, they did know about the attack before it happened, but the information they had wasn't enough to act on. The reports filled by the government regarding 9-11 are very clear on that remark. The other thing, I will have to disagree with, If the government wanted something destroyed they would not need to dispose of it in such a destructive and irresponsible manner, they dispose of them in a much less suspicious manner away from the prying eyes of the public; the thing about the government using 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, that could very well be the case, we had been wanting to invade Iraq, covertly, for many year in order to get rid of some dangerous muslim extremist groups.

[Rasta_Man]

I will have to disagree with, If the government wanted something destroyed they would not need to dispose of it in such a destructive and irresponsible manner, they dispose of them in a much less suspicious manner away from the prying eyes of the public;

About that... The goverment has destroyed documents right in front of the public eye. Remember when Bush Administration "lost" 15,000 emails. I think the government is cabable of doing this. Not to mension "misplaced" money and guns from Iraq.

Also the World Trade Center building 7 was a government fallout shelter that held secret CIA and Government documents. They say it fell because of a faulty structural design... In a government fallout shelter? I think not.

[BlackZodiac]

Personally I think it was planned and 9/11 and the people were sacrifice for it, with no honor, no way of defending themselfs, it's how things work. It dosn't make sence that it was a "weak structural flaw" because the damn thing had already been bombed once and had caught on fire and cleared something like 13+ floors (Don't quote me on it), and it was said the fire caused the building to collapse, when the fuel burns at 260-315 °C and the building was made from strong metal like cast iron, but let's say it was just steel, steel starts to ***t at 1510 °C. It's bullshit.

[PhonePhrack]

i am a strong nostradamus believer.......


wierd shit

[SuperSkunk]

If the goverment planned it they would want it to be in the public eye and they would want it to be sloppy so it didn't look like the work of a well organized group, such as, the goverment.

I'm not a Nostradamus believer but it is pretty amazing about his predictions. I just wonder how many of them didn't come true out of the ones that did.

[BlackZodiac]

If the goverment planned it they would want it to be in the public eye and they would want it to be sloppy so it didn't look like the work of a well organized group, such as, the goverment.

I'm not a Nostradamus believer but it is pretty amazing about his predictions. I just wonder how many of them didn't come true out of the ones that did.

How could you plan a "sloppy terrorist attack"? First of all it was in the public and not to mention in the eyes of thousands of witnesses and news stations. It fell down straight all the way down, if the one side gave in wouldn't you think that it would tumble down on an angle?

[Rasta_Man]

Thats what I was thinking. If there was a fire the weakest point would collaspe and the rest of the building would follow in that angle, but they just collapsed strait down.

[Eyespicks]

This is apart of Bush sr. New world order plan. Read a book-1984. This is one of the many steps in creating a Totalitarian government. The nazies did the same thing scaring the people to hand over complete control of the government to one person
See also V. for vendetta

[A Deo et Rege]

Structural engineers would disagree with you, the way the building were designed they were built to fall in their own shadow so as to not damage any of the surrounding buildings. The outside of the buildings was where the main structural support was located, the interior of the buildings was not designed to support anything but the individual floors, the elevator shafts were the backbone of the building and only served as a frame on which to build the floors. The weak structure of the floors and the lack of fire proofing is what lead to the collapse-the building literally imploded.

[itismesaj]

Think of it like an Audi. When you get into a crash, an Audi is not designed to still be intact once it is complete. Rather, the car uses itself to form a cacoon around the driver, keeping him/her safe.

[drewvdw]

blackzodiac, dont quote me on this one, but i think the temperature you were talking about is the liquifying temperature of steel. the hotter any metal gets, the weaker it is, imagine thousands of tons on weakening pieces of metal, also, the fire got hotter as everything around it burned. the building literally pancaked on top of itself, if you saw the footage again, you could see that the floors fell on top of themselves, progressively getting heavier and heavier, causing the whole building to fall, in the footage, you can see the facades of the buildings stay upright for a little while until the floors get too far down. also, in a few interviews with fire fighters, they claimed that when they were going up the stairs, they felt a heavy sustained wind blowing down on them, they are trained to leave in that type of instance. i hope everyone finds this information helpful

[Kurupted]

Jews did 9/11

[BlackZodiac]

blackzodiac, dont quote me on this one, but i think the temperature you were talking about is the liquifying temperature of steel. the hotter any metal gets, the weaker it is, imagine thousands of tons on weakening pieces of metal, also, the fire got hotter as everything around it burned. the building literally pancaked on top of itself, if you saw the footage again, you could see that the floors fell on top of themselves, progressively getting heavier and heavier, causing the whole building to fall, in the footage, you can see the facades of the buildings stay upright for a little while until the floors get too far down. also, in a few interviews with fire fighters, they claimed that when they were going up the stairs, they felt a heavy sustained wind blowing down on them, they are trained to leave in that type of instance. i hope everyone finds this information helpful

"dont quote me on this one"
-Sorry had too, I'll explain.

"but i think the temperature you were talking about is the liquifying temperature of steel. the hotter any metal gets, the weaker it is, imagine thousands of tons on weakening pieces of metal, also, the fire got hotter as everything around it burned."
- I was giving an example, the metal that was used was not suppose to loose it's support after 45 minutes, the building would have fallen on an angle.

"in a few interviews with fire fighters, they claimed that when they were going up the stairs, they felt a heavy sustained wind blowing down on them, they are trained to leave in that type of instance. i hope everyone finds this information helpful"
-Firefighters also heard explosions and found explosive type resudue, on the walls when the elevator exploded. Hope this helps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

[BlackZodiac]

Jews did 9/11

Read my rules before posting, take a week off.

[drewvdw]

hahaha, man zodiac i love u as a mod, where were you when hitler was ranting

[itismesaj]

I don't think firefighters' testimonies can be much help in a situation like this. There must have been so much adrenaline pumping through their vains that the sound a mouse makes may have sounded like an anvil dropping on an elephant. IMO.

The only thing that was supporting the building was the elevator shaft. Theories state that the engine fuel spewed down the elevator shaft at thousands of degrees (according to CNN; I don't have sources, I just remember hearing that), weakening it. That, combined with New York building (that is, collapsing upon itself to save nearby buildings and not have a domino effect) caused the buildings to crumble... and vertically.

Oh, and BlackZodiac, you are by far the coolest mod I have ever seen (other than me, of course :P ).

[drewvdw]

well, in my opinion, it goes, hacker, zodiac, then u saj

[drewvdw]

no offense

[itismesaj]

Que triste! Oh well. Either way, I'm in front of ghost! Yay me!

[itismesaj]

But I seriously think I'm a better mod than hacker :D. JK, you are a much better mod than I am.

[drewvdw]

dont worry, ghost is at the bottom of the list

[itismesaj]

w00t! Okay, I'm seriously going to stop spamming this thread now, and let discussion commence.

[Rasta_Man]

I don't think firefighters' testimonies can be much help in a situation like this. There must have been so much adrenaline pumping through their vains that the sound a mouse makes may have sounded like an anvil dropping on an elephant. IMO...

I dont know how you can think that. Firefighters are used to fires, panics, and I pretty dam sure they can handle their adrenaline. They are piad to risk their lives, so Im sure they can keep under control; Its their job.

[slug_stealth]

lots of good speculation im hearing. nice to finally hear people who have an idea about what they are talking about. here's my 2 cents about 9/11 and the towers.

the towers were built correctly. the fireproofing was installed correctly. the structural steel was made to withstand the temp. of burning jet fuel. And they even fell correctly. the problem lies in the cargo in the aircraft that impacted the buildings. the only flammable/explosive material that could have burned hot enough to null the effect of the fireproofing and make the metal plyable enough to collapse is......any guesses? its military grade.....ok its c4. burning at over 3000 degrees K, it was more than enough.

can anyone say false flag operations? chew on this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=64XyBz8oy3o

[itismesaj]

I dont know how you can think that. Firefighters are used to fires, panics, and I pretty dam sure they can handle their adrenaline. They are piad to risk their lives, so Im sure they can keep under control; Its their job.
This is different. A 767 has just crashed into one of the tallest buildings in the world, with hundreds dead on the initial impact.

[rebelmarine08]

I personally think that the Bush Administration knew about the attack pryor before it happend. I also think that they used this inccodent to destroy secret government document(pentagon and world trade center building #7). Also used 9/11 to invade Iraq.


I don't doubt that the NSA, CIA, or FBI had prior knowledge to the attack. Thousands of reports are filed every week and they tend to stick to the ones that seem most likely. However, the Bush *****. would have nothing to do with it. Politics and war are two very different worlds. And even at that, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan, remember?

Saddam violated international law by having the materials at hand to make WMD's, his troop numbers were far to high according to the UN regulations, and he openly promoted attacks on America prior to any conflict between us.

If it wasn't Bush that sent us in, I'd be there under another president. And seeing as all three of our formers went in (Clinton, 1998; Bush Sr, 1990) and the last attack had no affect we had few options left than to take him out, and kill the regime.

[rebelmarine08]

Oh, and did I mention I'm also a firefighter? I'm pretty sure I don't remember half of what goes on when I'm in a building. That's scary shit.

And the wing of the Pentagon that was hit was vacant for remodeling and some repairs.

[Rasta_Man]

... However, the Bush *****. would have nothing to do with it. Politics and war are two very different worlds. And even at that, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan, remember?

I knew we went to Afghanistan after the attack, but then after a point we had all our attention on Iraq. Bush said that Iraq had ties to 9/11, but like you said Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Along with a bunch of other lies to get us into war with Iraq.
And isnt one of the problems with this war is that Politics and the Military are grinding against each other. Bush thought he knew what he was doing, but he should have left the desicions to the Military leaders. The line has been blured between politics and military and church and state. I felt like throwing that last one in there.

[itismesaj]

The President is the Commander-in-Chief, remember? He is the military leader.

President Bush said that to ensure global security, Saddam had to be rid from the world. He also said that he would rid the world of evil, not just those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Watch his first speech after the attacks for proof.

He did what any military/political leader would do - he followed his human side. He wanted to ensure the safety of American lives. I would have thought (if I were President) that the attacks would open the door for further attacks. I wouldn't have stood for it, and neither did he.

[A Deo et Rege]

The President is the Commander-in-Chief, remember? He is the military leader.

President Bush said that to ensure global security, Saddam had to be rid from the world. He also said that he would rid the world of evil, not just those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Watch his first speech after the attacks for proof.

He did what any military/political leader would do - he followed his human side. He wanted to ensure the safety of American lives. I would have thought (if I were President) that the attacks would open the door for further attacks. I wouldn't have stood for it, and neither did he.

Very well put; if I do say so myself.

[Rasta_Man]

If we should have started a long ass war with any country it should have been Iran; Not Iraq.

[itismesaj]

This war has been going on for the greater part of four years. In retrospect, this is one of the shortest wars we've ever been in.

[Rasta_Man]

Well your right. But this war doesnt seem like it will end anytime soon.

[itismesaj]

That's speculation.

It's amazing what happens to a debate when logic is added, isn't it?

[Rasta_Man]

We are not just fighting a single country. We are taking on a whole religion and the middle east.

[itismesaj]

We're taking on those who have mis-interpreted the Quran. There is a passage "Go and rid the world of infidels." Sunnis have interpreted this to mean "Go and convert the world to the best religion of Islam," whereas radical Shiites have interpreted it to mean "Go and kill all those who are not Islamic." It's a point of view.

[rebelmarine08]

Well, I wasn't around to argue those points, but thank you itismesaj.

I'm all for clearing the world of evil.. Bush had a great idea going into Iraq. But it wasn't executed as well as we all had hoped. Great theory, and a great guy in my opinion... Just a lot to bare, and poor advisers.

[Mad_Anarchy_Man]

America, with all its military might, cannot win the war in iraq. When faced with a entire nation agaisnt the invaders its going to be a long and hard struggle to win. Its in the military sense Vietnam again.

[rebelmarine08]

If we were fighting a war, it would have been done two years ago. But we're fighting armed civilians... We are policing at the moment, until we can train their cops. There's no struggle to win.... The war's been one. But our military (and my Corps) are not trained to be police. They are trained to wage war... ENTIRELY different.

[BlackZodiac]

If we were fighting a war, it would have been done two years ago. But we're fighting armed civilians... We are policing at the moment, until we can train their cops. There's no struggle to win.... The war's been one. But our military (and my Corps) are not trained to be police. They are trained to wage war... ENTIRELY different.

"If we were fighting a war, it would have been done two years ago."
-What like Vietnam? Hahaha, get it stright man, there has been more fighting in fallujah then there was in first year of being in Iraq. Far from done.

"But we're fighting armed civilians... We are policing at the moment, until we can train their cops."
-No, you're fighting Mujahideen, and islamic insurgents comming from Iran. It dosn't take years to train their armed forces. No you're not policing, United States, Germany,Australia and England are fighting the war along JTF2, Japan,S.Korea,Netherlands, etc are policing.

"There's no struggle to win.... The war's been one. But our military (and my Corps) are not trained to be police. They are trained to wage war... ENTIRELY different."
-No struggle to win? then how come Iraq is not fully sustained?

"The war's been one. But our military (and my Corps) are not trained to be police. "
- No the battles have been won, not the war on terrorism, nor has securing Iraq either.
-Not trained to be police? You are trained to gaurd and fight, by policing an area is to defend and keep order, which anyone can do (In a war type situation), the Marines do house rainds and you say they arn't trained to be police? You have no clue to what you're talking about.

"They are trained to wage war... ENTIRELY different."
-Yeah... With what? All those UAV's, cruise missiles, and long range high altitude bombers? yeah right.

[itismesaj]

This is the most unconventional war we've ever been in. We're not on pre-determined battle fields with trenches and air raids. We're fighting many different enemies at once, who's sole life mission is to take down as many people as they can. They're not after territory (unless you count Israel, but that's a different part) or money or anything after the sort. They're after... well, I don't know.

[drewvdw]

"lots of good speculation im hearing. nice to finally hear people who have an idea about what they are talking about. here's my 2 cents about 9/11 and the towers.

the towers were built correctly. the fireproofing was installed correctly. the structural steel was made to withstand the temp. of burning jet fuel. And they even fell correctly. the problem lies in the cargo in the aircraft that impacted the buildings. the only flammable/explosive material that could have burned hot enough to null the effect of the fireproofing and make the metal plyable enough to collapse is......any guesses? its military grade.....ok its c4. burning at over 3000 degrees K, it was more than enough."

ok, i don't care how hot you get any military grade c4, it's not going to explode. my brother's friend is in the navy SEALs. he does a lot of shit with that stuff. the only way to get it to blow is to stick an electric igniter in it. c4 doesnt burn, it explodes causing a huge concussion, not a very large flame. i rest my case.

[itismesaj]

Yeah, drewvdw is right (for once).

The maximum burning temperature for jet fuel is 1796 degrees F, which is more than enough to bend metal, causing the towers to cave upon themselves.

[drewvdw]

what the hell do you mean "for once"

[BlackZodiac]

Yeah, drewvdw is right (for once).

The maximum burning temperature for jet fuel is 1796 degrees F, which is more than enough to bend metal, causing the towers to cave upon themselves.

Funny thing is, normal steel burns at 1100°-1600°C not fahrenheit, convert 1100°C = 2012°F & at 1600°C = almost 3000°F. Not more then enough, the steel used in the World Trade centers.

Part of the problem is that people often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of ***ting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, na***y, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to ***t steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel ***ted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

[drewvdw]

ok then if partially burned fuel causes soot, then why does a candle smoke when you hold a knife over it, in the flame. even if the candle doesnt normaly smoke. i think that having metal in the mix could cause soot. besides, havent you seen oil burn, that stuff smokes like none other. how do you think that a jet engine's turbines are able to turn without siezing up. i think the flame would have a lot of air to make it burn, if you look at the videos, there is some wind, but not a whole lot. i imagine that a huge gaping hole through the side of a building would expose it to a little air.

[itismesaj]

You're also leaving the fact that the jet engines suck in air. And that would be the reason for the gust of wind firefighters experienced.

I didn't say ***t, I said burn. After five minutes exposure to a hot flame, I can bend steel easily. We're talking forty-five minutes of flame.

[rebelmarine08]

That's funny Black Zodiac.... I could've SWORE I knew my own fucking job description.

I realize we are fighting mujahideen... But they are NOT the Republican Gaurd, or the Iraqi Army... ARMED FUCKING CIVILIANS. Not trained military personel. Whether or not they are Mujahideen or not, they picked up a rifle at their local gun dealer and shot at Coalition Forces.

You don't have to go room to room confiscating weapons from civilians when you are not policing an area. This is not a war. And Fallujah is IN Iraq. I know how much fighting has been and is going on there. Don't even attempt to tell me you know better you smug son of a bitch.

[BlackZodiac]

That's funny Black Zodiac.... I could've SWORE I knew my own fucking job description.

I realize we are fighting mujahideen... But they are NOT the Republican Gaurd, or the Iraqi Army... ARMED FUCKING CIVILIANS. Not trained military personel. Whether or not they are Mujahideen or not, they picked up a rifle at their local gun dealer and shot at Coalition Forces.

You don't have to go room to room confiscating weapons from civilians when you are not policing an area. This is not a war. And Fallujah is IN Iraq. I know how much fighting has been and is going on there. Don't even attempt to tell me you know better you smug son of a bitch.

I could have swore I know you're a fucking lier.

"I realize we are fighting mujahideen..."
-I don't think you do.

"But they are NOT the Republican Gaurd, or the Iraqi Army..."
-Show me where I said they were

"ARMED FUCKING CIVILIANS"
-Civlians might be armed but there is a difference between insurents, al-qaeda, mujahideen, etc.

"Not trained military personel. Whether or not they are Mujahideen or not, they picked up a rifle at their local gun dealer and shot at Coalition Forces."
-No they were supplied from China and Iran, funneled through Iran to Iraq, local gun dealer, pfft.

"You don't have to go room to room confiscating weapons from civilians when you are not policing an area."
-Where did I say they go "Room to room taking weapons"?

"This is not a war. And Fallujah is IN Iraq. I know how much fighting has been and is going on there."
- Yes it is a war, why is it called the "War on terrorism"? What is it then? And I know Fallujah is in Iraq, where the fuck did I say it wasn't?

"Don't even attempt to tell me you know better you smug son of a bitch."
-I will inform your lack of knowledge self, because you're not in the military, have a nice few weeks off my friend.

[itismesaj]

"If terrorism is a form of war, and war is a terror, then what is a war on terror?"

:D

[superflysuperwhite]

population control

[drewvdw]

fighting for freedom, freedom from being scared of being attacked by bin laden and other terrorists. if we eradicate the belief that the U.S. is invading iraq, we stop their need to attack the U.S.

[itismesaj]

You just contradicted yourself. Here's what you said:

1. We're fighting so that we don't have to be afraid of attack.
2. If we stop fighting, we stop the need to be afraid of attack.

?

[superflysuperwhite]

i dont get it. that makes no sense what so ever drewvdw SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU 14 YEAR OLD CUNT


i think we need an age limit for the politics thread

[A Deo et Rege]

They don't fight us just because we have invaded their country; they fight and or attack us because they think we are the "devil" and it is their responsibility to get rid of the "devil".

[superflysuperwhite]

i honestly dont get what the big deal is any more. it happend 7 years ago yes it was a tragidy, but people die all the time the only reason things like these are glorified is because of the number of people who died in one insodent. what about all the people who die every day from aids, cancer, murder, masterbation (yes people die masterbateing).

[itismesaj]

Well, first of all, it was six years ago.

And the reason we glorify things like this is because it was an unprovoked attack on a symbol of American power.

[superflysuperwhite]

damn it. 200"7" confused me (its too god damn late)

thats not really my point, on 9/11 i got yelled at by some girl because i didnt want to do another moment of silence for the people who died. so she called me selfish and said i dont care about people.

if no one died then we wouldnt be holding moments of silence or things like that every year

[itismesaj]

It's not against any law or anything to not be memorable, of course. But it's respectful I'd say.

[superflysuperwhite]

im memorable like i said it was a tragidy but what about pearl harbor? why dont we have a moment of silence every year for that. or the boston massacer etc.

[itismesaj]

I think about the same things every time we have a moment of silence. I personally hold a moment of silence every December 7 anyway.

[Rasta_Man]

Unprovoked attack? What the hell are you talking about? We have been in the Middle East pissing off everyone for many years now. It was not unprovoked, they had reasons to hate America. Our fucked up foreign policy is part to blame for this whole thing.

[itismesaj]

Yes, but flying three planes into buildings, and attempting to sabotage our central government was unprovoked. It was an act of war, and so they got it.

[Rasta_Man]

How is flying planes into any building unprovoked? You don’t just go into an airport and decide that day to hijack planes and fly them into important American buildings. You need a plan and a reason; and the hijackers had both.

P.S: There were 4 planes hijacked.

[itismesaj]

You don't need a reason at all. You need a plan and a GOAL. The hijackers had both, but only achieved half of their goal.

[BlackZodiac]

You don't need a reason at all. You need a plan and a GOAL. The hijackers had both, but only achieved half of their goal.

Yes you do, the United States has been a major influence to the Middle East, and most leaders did not want any "western influence". The United States has been poking around the Middle East area for a while now. Once the United States wanted Osama Bin Ladden to be captured, dead or alive. He then declared a "Jihad war" on western countries, mainly the United States. Years later 9/11 happened, long, complicated story short.

[BlackZodiac]

Yes, but flying three planes into buildings, and attempting to sabotage our central government was unprovoked. It was an act of war, and so they got it.

The "terrorists" sabotaged the World Trade Centers was an act of terrorism & war by (the declaration of a "Jihad war" by Osama Bin Ladden on the United States) that was provoked by heavy western influence in the Middle East, and how the United States wanted him dead.

[itismesaj]

But when the attacks on 9/11 occured, for days we thought Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it (again, according to CNN).

And there's nothing wrong with troops stationed somewhere. There are US troops stationed all over the world.

[BlackZodiac]

But when the attacks on 9/11 occured, for days we thought Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it (again, according to CNN).

And there's nothing wrong with troops stationed somewhere. There are US troops stationed all over the world.

"But when the attacks on 9/11 occured, for days we thought Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it (again, according to CNN)."

-No the government knew right away, there supposeivly was letters sent in which claims that Al-Qaeda (Osama bin ladden's terrorist organization) sent them letters months before 9/11.

"And there's nothing wrong with troops stationed somewhere. There are US troops stationed all over the world"
-No there is not any problem if they are stationed somewhere they are suppose to be is the big factor. They jump into places where they shouldn't really be. The United States didn't leave Saudi-Arabia because the government wanted in Iraq, and when Iraq invaded Kuwait the United States jumped in and aided Kuwait. Then things went wrong back in the United States with elections comming up and that the war was already won, they couldn't stay.

[midnight_curse]

9-11 was the most thought out, planned, and conversed attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. in all reality the information they had was supple enough for anyone to understand. they were planning an attack, on an economic land mine in the US. the only one that would effect us was the twin towers. Fort Knox is mostly only gold that hasn't moved in 18,000 years. The federal reserve in Penn. is all forgien. So what's left??? even after it happened a course of action was not decided upon until almost 6 HOURS LATER. and at that pointthe only thing that was decided to do was send everyone that is part of emergency services that wasn't alredy there to "ground zero" (usually that applies to nuclear waste but whatever). the bigest thing we can do is to get over it. every time we have some huge deal about it all we're doing is letting them know "Hey you guys you really nailed us. and you can make us weak over and over." I agree it should be a natonal holiday but this huge memorial every year is too much. United we stand, Divided we fall. thats what they say... next time make the two divided towers united in one.

[Eyespicks]

Novus Ordo Mundi
You guys better get the fuck ready, cuz its coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm <-(skip past the first 3rd of this)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=rise+of+the+police+state&total=473&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Figure it out for yorself