Skepticism of 9/11 Truth is Denial for Comfort Sake

Originally posted by pavil

I'll concede they may have wanted Iraq to fall.. But it's not logical to expect that outcome by crashing planes into the World Trade Centers.

Who in the world would predict that the United States wouldn't go after A.Q. and Afghanistan for harboring them? It quite honestly was almost a given. A.Q. wanted the region radicalized and in turmoil, what better way to do it then have the U.S. come in and stomp around?

While you mention Iraq in the part after this, you still fail to address my point. Nobody would have assumed the US would invade Iraq because some Al Qaeda flew some jets into the WTC. The links are simply not there, and the reason the US invaded Iraq was for WMD's, which were never there either.

The rest of your post is your opinion, and you have every right to form that, I just don't agree with most of it and the evidence isn't there to support it. I stand by the fact that Al Qaeda has gained nothing since 9/11 except hardship.

reply to post by adjay


Perhaps you didn't read my post entirely. I stated in it that A.Q. wanted turmoil in the region, it's one of the first steps in bringing a new Caliphate into being. As I stated they probably thought we would go after Iran or Iraq after taking out Afghanistan and getting Pakistan on our side. A.Q. knew our response would entail military incursions into other Muslim lands after Afghanistan, that was really what they wanted. With the big bad Americans invading Muslim lands, A.Q. has found willing recruits and a reason to galvanize radical Muslims in the region.

While A.Q. has a harder life now, they reach a far larger audience and gain more recruits with the added publicity. They were weakened for a while as we pummeled them out of Afghanistan but they have revived themselves. To think we have A.Q. on the ropes would be a mistake IMO. We hit them and they fell to the floor, but they have gotten up.

In short , A.Q. knew that the U.S. response to 9/11 would involve military actions in multiple Muslim lands. They basically invited us to hit them take the battle to them in the Middle East and we obliged.

Read up a little on A.Q. ultimate goals and you tell me what they are.

Since you wanted links to prove that A.Q. has gained, here you are:

www.washingtonpost.com... /17/AR2007071700099.html

www.washingtonpost.com... /07/11/AR2007071102443_pf.html

Torture is illegal, both domesticalland internationally by law. The Geneva Convention expressly forbids torture. The US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention and is therefore bound legally by the document.

The current administration simply ignores this truth.

Torture is against the law and is an impeachable offense. Straight up no question. Yet the MSM presents torture as an option deserving debate and approval from the American public.

How far we have come from the rule of law. This is one more example of executive power run amok.

Simple examples of criminal behavior by the current administration further solidify my poisitionk

reply to post by pavil


I did read your post fully, that's not the problem.

The problem lies, in that Al Qaeda is a CIA manufactered monster gone wrong, and I'm not aware they publish their "aims" anywhere on the net. I don't think they are "on the ropes" either as I never credited them as being fighting fit in the first place. They sprang to notoriety in the public eye around the time of 9/11, and any glance at a supermarket book shelf will show you this. The amount of literature on Al Qaeda since 9/11 is staggering, where were all these books before this?

They didn't exist. There were very few references to them, but now you can find every man and his dog publishing "facts" and "trivia" about them, but very little delve deep enough to reveal the dark twisted background that cultivated them from the PDPA.

“Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”

What changed them from Freedom Fighters, to Terrorists? The blame of 9/11, so again, my opinion is they gained nothing from the events of 9/11, and in fact stood to lose more than anyone.

I only picked that part of your post to address, as the rest is pure conjecture based on your opinion of what you think. Neither of us, or anybody really know how many there are now, or what they are doing, or where they are, but by your posts, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and everything Bush has done, has only made them stronger ("By all estimates A.Q. has built back up to pre 9/11 power."). I contend the opposite - they are much weaker, however they are probably much, much more vengeful for the way they have been treated.

Give them an imperialist to hate, and hate the imperialist they shall.

Originally posted by adjay

They sprang to notoriety in the public eye around the time of 9/11, and any glance at a supermarket book shelf will show you this. The amount of literature on Al Qaeda since 9/11 is staggering, where were all these books before this?

What? A.Q. was around for a long time before 9/11, you and most other people just weren't paying attention. I suggest you investigate further for your own knowledge. Of course 9/11 was a watershed event, but A.Q. had been around for far longer.

As for A.Q. aims, again I suggest you look for Bin Laden interviews. Here is some starter material for you though:

www.infoplease.com...

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

I know it sounds strange to have a goal of ridding American and Western influence in all Muslim nations by goading America into attacking some of said Muslim nations. It just happens to be the most direct route to Al Queda's ultimate goal. Look at their far larger goal, uniting all Muslim nations, what better way to do that then by uniting them against a Zionist backing U.S. who has invaded Muslim lands. A.Q. wasn't going to eliminate U.S. influence in the region any other way.

I only picked that part of your post to address, as the rest is pure conjecture based on your opinion of what you think. Neither of us, or anybody really know how many there are now, or what they are doing, or where they are, but by your posts, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and everything Bush has done, has only made them stronger

It is not just my opinon but the opinon of the National Intellegence Estimate and a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center that state A.Q. has rebounded from our attacks after 9/11. I have provided the links. Don't make it sound as if it is only my opinon. No, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have not made A.Q. stonger by themselves but A.Q. is unfortunetly in a much stonger position than they were in 2002 and 2003. This is going to be a very long drawn out conflict and will require diligent effort to eliminate the threats Radical Islam pose to the West. Containment is not a viable strategy, they have proven time and time again they won't stop till the whole world is Muslim. You tell me what you would suggest to combat Radical Islam? Please don't assume I am lumping all of Islam in with the Radical Islam, that plainly is not the case, but there are enough Radicals to cause great harm.
[edit on 12-12-2007 by pavil]

[edit on 12-12-2007 by pavil]

reply to post by BlueRaja

The facts are that most scientists/investigators don't subscribe to the 9/11 Truth theories.

Pilots, Engineers,AE 9/11truthand architects do.pilots for 9/11 truth

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by adjay

 

What I mainly have to go on are the phone conversations from flight 93. It pretty much disproves the theory of remote-controlled planes and other ideas. It is pretty obvious Islamic terrorists hijacked the planes. I agree with you that it would call for a massive cover up had the U.S. government been involved. As they say, get seven men involved in a conspiracy and be assured that one will talk.

Actually, Ashley, those calls were never made. The proof is that the technology for cell phone in airplanes to ground was in it's infancy in 2001. If in doubt, you or anyone else can research why cell phone use in those alleged planes was nearly, if not totally, impossible, particularly in the numbers the "official" version touted were completed.

The planes have to be equipped to allow cell phone calls to reach ground towers. Those alleged planes were not equipped for that to happen. The alleged planes' altitude would have prevented any but a highly single remote chance signal of hitting the ground towers for transmission of cell phone calls. The only calls, which could possibily have been made, would have been from air phones the manufacturers install when building the planes.

Did people ask why alleged terrorists were allowing people to make any calls at all? Wouldn't that have defeated their alleged purpose of covert attack? Particularly, with so many people alleged to have cell phones stuck to their ears, in obvious view of alleged terrorists with box cutters as their rinky dink "weapons" of choice. Normally, a utility knife (box cutter) is not actually a knife. It is a slender metal case containing a trapazoid shaped razor blade that can be extended for use to approximately 2" in length.

The entire US government, which would also include the entire citizenry of the US, were not necessarily directly involved. Only the top echelon of politics and finance (Establishment) were directly involved. Everyone else working in bureaucracy and finance would accept doing what they were told to do and accept the "official" version. Or chance losing what could be very lucrative jobs and perks for questioning what was not intended to be questioned. When people have financial power, they know exactly how to discredit anyone who cannot equal that financial power.

Whenever questionable events take place involving finance, as in the case of 9/11 and thereafter, always follow the money. That certainly has not been hard to do even before 9/11.

Originally posted by pavil

What? A.Q. was around for a long time before 9/11, you and most other people just weren't paying attention. I suggest you investigate further for your own knowledge. Of course 9/11 was a watershed event, but A.Q. had been around for far longer.

They certainly have been going back to the 1980s when they were aka Osama bin Laden and the Muhjadeen aka Taliban. Ronald Reagan gave them public recognition as "Afghan freedom fighters helping to maintain US and world freedom". That and the millions, or was it billions?, of US taxpayer dollars the Reagan administration, congress and senate fed to bin Laden in hard cash, plus, CIA training, military weapons, and special ops military training during the 1980s.

For those not familiar with all the sordid events during the Reagan administration, this book by Bob Woodward can be quite helpful for historical purposes, which would eventually greatly impact what transpired on 9/11 Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981 - 1987

Please do keep in mind that at one time George H W Bush used to head the CIA.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


How does it feel to have one strike against you? One more strike and "you're out!". The gestapo is in full force so you best go into hiding in other forums.

I was just kidding of course. For all I know I'll get a strike for this.

Anyway, no need to post in the 911 forums any more because I don't know exactly what would be inappropriate.

Originally posted by crowpruitt

The facts are that most scientists/investigators don't subscribe to the 9/11 Truth theories.

Pilots, Engineers,AE 9/11truthand architects do.pilots for 9/11 truth

While most probably don't subscribe to them and feel that the OT is right, possibly through their own work (lets face it, three unexpected high rise collapses probably sparked a lot of interest in the engineering community), at least those two groups might actually come up with a decent explanation that doesn't require a youtube video showing fuzzy footage over and over again.

And frankly, until I see scientific proof or a decent beginning of it, I won't feel certain that it was a CD.

Sure it looks like one (and my thought leads that way), but other people say it looks like a pyroclastic flow, therefore it is one!!

Originally posted by Conundrum04
How does it feel to have one strike against you? One more strike and "you're out!". The gestapo is in full force so you best go into hiding in other forums.

I was just kidding of course. For all I know I'll get a strike for this.

Anyway, no need to post in the 911 forums any more because I don't know exactly what would be inappropriate.

Same here. I'm altogether done with this topic . I will not stick my neck out on this message board of all places to 'debate' with skeptics any longer (hence this thread). I have no idea how I incurred any heat to begin with - this topic is JUST that touchy.

Props to the 9/11 truth supporters in here.

/thread for me


[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

Uncomfortable Heat

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I have no idea how I incurred any heat to begin with - this topic is JUST that touchy.

If I suggested that you believe what you do about 9/11 because of a willful desire to be ignorant for the sake of "comfort", you might better understand why the subject is "touchy".

I respect your right to believe whatever you want about 9/11.

If you're willing to do the same, the subject need not be "touchy" at all.

It's not complicated.

There is actually some very poignant psychological phenomena supporting the viewpoint expressed in the title of this thread. Normative social influences can actually bend our perception of reality.... scary!!

Originally posted by pavil
What? A.Q. was around for a long time before 9/11, you and most other people just weren't paying attention. I suggest you investigate further for your own knowledge. Of course 9/11 was a watershed event, but A.Q. had been around for far longer.

Now, Pavil, you are the one not reading my posts. I'll highlight the part that made this, and the rest of your post, fruitless:

Originally posted by adjay
They sprang to notoriety in the public eye around the time of 9/11

Emphasis in bold, I did not say they were not around, I said they sprang to notoriety. If you knew your history that well, you would have have known the quote I posted:

“Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”

... was a quote from 1985, talking about "Al Qaeda", when they were on the Americans side!. This quote is from Ronald Reagen, and the fact you missed this and embark on a crusade trying to tell me to "educate myself" speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge on the database of PDPA that eventually came to be known as Al Qaeda.

sp00n1's video is the best demonstration of the "mass mind" at work I have ever seen, and show's how easy it is for the government, or any other capable agency, to twist the public view to a certain angle.



[edit on 13-12-2007 by adjay]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yeah Baby!! and thats what I love about this place. You tell em skeptic.

- Love Con
PS: he aint called SkepticOverlord for nuthin lol

reply to post by Conspiriology



While splitting up those involved in a conspiracy, so they don't know the big picture sounds plausible, there are some flaws with that argument.

They may not know the big picture, but I seriously doubt that if someone had put demo charges in the WTC, and then seen it fall down, they wouldn't know what they'd been involved in. The same could be said about air traffic controllers, fighter pilots, etc.... Once they saw the after effects, they'd know the big picture, if they'd been asked to do something that sounded out of the ordinary.

reply to post by Majic


He believes that the CT version of history is a foregone truth, so anyone not subscribing to it is being willfully ignorant. He won't acknowledge that there are a lot more scientists/engineers that don't support the inside job position either, yet he wonders why skeptics are touchy when such assertions are made about them.

reply to post by adjay



Please provide the link for your external quote. Thanks.

reply to post by pavil


Certainly sir. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

And an interesting editorial piece concerning the quote more directly.