I am not going to write a treatise on the subject on this forum because not many people here could appreciate the work it takes to write an elegant and well supported paper. As far as 9/11 is concerned, I never cared about how as much as about why. And why is not hard to see. The idea that USA needed a Pearl Harbor type of an event to "motivate" "the general population" towards imperialistic goals is not unique and it did not occur to deranged lunatics. One reference to it is in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard. It came out in 1998. I would sound too professorial if I explained who Zbigniew Brzezinski was and what role he played in the history of the United States. The other, more intriguing reference to it came from an organization called THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY created by NEOCONSERVATIVES!!!!! William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Their paper came out in 2000! You can see it here http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Page 51. "....Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â like a new Pearl Harbor!!!" Read the whole 90 pages it will open your eyes. So there came a time when a group of people known as neoconservatives came to power in the US. Not surprisingly, their primary distinguishing trait is an overly aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy. So what happened after 9/11? In the first few days, W promised to "smoke out" Bin Laden and bring him to justice dead or alive. Not long after, he said he did not care where Bin Laden is (that statement by itself make the whole endeavour a lie.) US did a lot of interesting things. While a war against terrorism (a ridiculous and laughable concept) is a unique(unconventional) type of war, US started increasing its conventional military budget to insane levels. US also withdrew from ABM treaty with Russia. While 15 of the 19 hijackers were allegedly from Saudi Arabia and extremist schools were blamed for creating Wahabism NOTHING was done to Saudi Arabia. Before the Afghanistan war Taliban wanted to see proof of Bin laden's guilt, W did not provide it. US also rather conveniently started courting former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan, Kazakhstan, etc about setting up military bases there (increasing sphere of influence in Russia's backyard) Even better, US started the war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. The "best" thing about war on terror is that it has no sense of clear purpose or objectives. It is a war that cannot end and allows a blank check to jack your military budget to insane levels and intervene in strategic areas of the world. So what is the point of 9/11? In one word Imperialism. That would include control of flow of oil, positioning yourself in critical regions, dominating Eurasia, etc. But most importantly, it justifies such measures to civilian population and makes those things seem reasonable and just. If it were about fighting terrorism, US would not go into Iraq, would devote everything to finding Bin Laden, seek realistic changes in Saudi Arabia, etc. But realistically, foreign terrorism does not threaten US unless it is allowed to happen. Now people frequently fall into anti semitic trap and think 9/11 was for Israel and was done by mossad. That is a moronic concept for the simple reason that US can guarantee Israel's existence without firing a shot. Israel can defend itself militarily from any hostile middle eastern power and in the most horrible worst case scenario possible US can simply airlift enough supplies to turn the tide of any war.
I am not in the CT camp at all. I do believe there are highly unusual issues and vast, unanswered questions surrounding whatever ultimately happens to become the ultimate 'true and complete story' regarding 9/11, however. One thing I find at least interesting is that there really was a U.S. General working inside the confines of the D.O.D. at the Pentagon, during the Kennedy Administration, who did propose an operation whereby military aircraft would be painted and dressed as civilian ones, blown up over the skyline of Miami, the government was going to publish a fake list of civilian deaths, and blame the whole incident on Cuba and the Castro Regime. There are some who even claim the General, who was discharged of his rank by Kennedy upon learning of this plan, had others in the Pentagon on board, and that there was even consideration that these planes would be intentionally crashed into Miami high rise buildings, though this facet of the plan never appeared in the 'blueprint.' Then, of course, you have the Kennedy assassination, whereby a seedy nightclub owner having ties to the criminal underground (Jack Ruby), was so emotionally 'broken up' by Kennedy's death, he felt compelled to go and kill Oswald before the media had a chance to hear more from Oswald or any of his lawyers or representatives, and before any trial could take place. Nigga', please. Haroki, thanks for those links.
Bush's 2000 campaign. Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." Wikipedia Sorry Bush was not aggressive till after the attacks. Your whole argument is based on an aggressive Bush which doesn't float because it wasnt what Bush advocated. So go dream something up about, Cheney, Rove, or Haliburton and try again.
You are a bigger moron than I thought. Bush told the public what it wanted to hear. That did not represent his CORE beliefs or beliefs of Cheney, Wolfovitz, Rumsfeld. Bush also promised to unite not divide and bring dignity and honor to the white house. Did you believe that too?
Sure thing. And don't take this the wrong way, but if you give any credence at all to what the snake oil salesmen say about 9/11 being an inside jobby job, then you are a moron. Go read a few threads at JREF, and you'll see the level of cognitive dissonance that these retards spew. And for an even bigger dose, go to the OP's favorite haunt - ATS. There are nut cases that make the case of nukes being used, silent explosives being used, thermxte being used, thermxte AND explosives being used, thermobarics being used, no planes were used and it was all holograms and explosives, planes were used but they were remote controlled, planes were used and they were flown by suicide Mossad agents, directed energy weapons were used and no planes were used...... and on and on. Yet somehow, they're all correct to those retards. Or at least, there is some probability of it proving an inside jobby job. If you want to put yourself in that camp.... go right ahead.
There is a lot of wierd stuff going on with Kennedy, thats true, but I have yet to be given any solid evidence that suggests anyone but Oswald was behind it. I have heard the stories about the General also. I don't think that really sheds any light onto 9/11 though. The fact remains, that if the 9/11 Truthers really were onto something those in the government who were involved would have the Truthers killed in a heartbeat. Count on it.
Ummm, if the government killed those people, I don't think they would be holding a press conference to tell everyone what they did. It would be something more along the lines of Jimmy Hoffa.
I actually remember seeing Oswald on TV saying "I'm a patsy, I'm a patsy" before he was shot. Starting to make sense now many years later.