9/11 "WHY" from Who, How and Why's?

[Stryder]

Some will find the Who, How and Why very simple to explain. others won't particular care, they just deal with an event that happened that was completely out of their control.

As you might of noticed another 9/11 is a super thread, it might seem a dumping ground in reality it's something to pull on since a lot of links to things already exist there. I suggest we over a course have THREE new threads, the WHO, the HOW and the WHY to 9/11. This of course is the WHY thread.

WHY did the attack occur? WHY were Islamics involved? WHY was Afghanistan targetted? There are many other why's I'm sure you can add some yourself.

 

[scott3x]

Why is sometimes the hardest to answer. Who is easier but can still be fairly hard. How is the easiest of the 3 of your questions. However, the easiest by far is one you didn't ask and one I tend to focus on- what, as in -what- truly happened. As in:

Where the WTC buildings brought down by fires or by controlled demolitions?

Did the Pentagon truly get hit by a plane?

Those are the types of questions I've spent most of my time trying to answer. I liken it to working on the edges of a puzzle before going for the center. However, I have done a bit of the why, as can be seen in this post regarding why WTC 7 was taken down by Controlled Demolition (this is, ofcourse, on the assumption that this is what happened):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090036&postcount=18

 

[fedr808]

Why is sometimes the hardest to answer. Who is easier but can still be fairly hard. How is the easiest of the 3 of your questions. However, the easiest by far is one you didn't ask and one I tend to focus on- what, as in -what- truly happened. As in:

Where the WTC buildings brought down by fires or by controlled demolitions?

Did the Pentagon truly get hit by a plane?

Those are the types of questions I've spent most of my time trying to answer. I liken it to working on the edges of a puzzle before going for the center. However, I have done a bit of the why, as can be seen in this post regarding why WTC 7 was taken down by Controlled Demolition (this is, ofcourse, on the assumption that this is what happened):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090036&postcount=18

wtf? that had nothing to do with the question. Iraq probly supplied the terrorist cuz they thot that the US would think the terrorists came from Iran, and the US would invade iran. we all know how that backfired

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Why is sometimes the hardest to answer. Who is easier but can still be fairly hard. How is the easiest of the 3 of your questions. However, the easiest by far is one you didn't ask and one I tend to focus on- what, as in -what- truly happened. As in:

Where the WTC buildings brought down by fires or by controlled demolitions?

Did the Pentagon truly get hit by a plane?

Those are the types of questions I've spent most of my time trying to answer. I liken it to working on the edges of a puzzle before going for the center. However, I have done a bit of the why, as can be seen in this post regarding why WTC 7 was taken down by Controlled Demolition (this is, ofcourse, on the assumption that this is what happened):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090036&postcount=18

wtf? that had nothing to do with the question.

Actually, it does, although only in respect to WTC 7.

Iraq probly supplied the terrorist cuz they thot that the US would think the terrorists came from Iran, and the US would invade iran. we all know how that backfired

Even the official story doesn't back up that claim; it posits that the terrorists were mostly of Saudi Arabian origin. You must have gotten a little too caught up in Bush's fervent desire to invade Iraq at any cost, and apparently now believe the Iraqis supplied the official story terrorists

 

[Headspin]

wtf? that had nothing to do with the question. Iraq probly supplied the terrorist cuz they thot that the US would think the terrorists came from Iran, and the US would invade iran. we all know how that backfired

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911, even bush admits that on cnn!

why ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chess...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227027982&sr=8-1

 

[takethewarhome]

People hate and people fear, that's why.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Why? Because Cheney and other fat-cats have millions invested in military supply production companies, and stand to profit immensely from ANY war.

Also it was so we could have a legitimate reason to invade what we perceived to be possible threats to our country and handle them in a preemptive fashion. Im sure there were other hidden agendas as well but that is merely speculation and unprovable. This was not the first terrorist attack on the US, just the largest.

Once the Bush administration got their foot in the door in the middle-east they turned their attention to what I think was their original target, to take down Saddam Hussein (with his with us or against us mentality). I say this because here is DIRECT evidence Bush lied about the conditions in Iraq so we could PROVOKE them and start another war after we FAILED to find WMD's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb3Ojns7fuA

Now Saddam was a bad guy and needed to be dealt with, but not like this.
One way or another Bill Clintons blowjob is apparently higher grounds for impeachment then going to WAR under fabricated false pretenses. Bush must have a better HR dept.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Stryder's post 1538 in the WTC Collapses thread.

This isn't why 9/11 happened, but more why this particular truther has fought so put in so much energy in regards to all of this; I figured this would be the best thread to put it in.

Okay, lets try a different angle. Let's say beyond all comprehension, beyond all evidence, there was a conspiracy.

What are you conspiracy monger's attempting to achieve?

Do you think your name will be written in the annals of history

Maybe, if I keep on going at it. It's not why I've fought so hard though.

or that you'll automatically assume the thrown of your chosen government for seeing through a deception?

Not a chance .

Do you think that having "your truth" is going to benefit the world somehow?

Yes. This is why I do it.

All I can see from hashing over the same shit daily is a bunch of people dropping out on things that really count. Like solving the current economic slide, National debt or feeding the poor or starved etc.

Those issues are important too. And perhaps they'll soon get to the point where I and others will have to drop the whole issue of 9/11 and concentrate on things of that nature. I just haven't felt that that point in time has arrived yet. To tell you the honest truth, I'm not even so concerned that the criminals are caught; it's one thing to say that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition; it's quite another to prove who did it. -However-, atleast at that point I think that people will begin to realize 'how dark the con of man' can be at times, to borrow a phrase from The Da Vinci Code, and to not be so trusting of those who are in positions of authority.

 

[MacGyver1968]

This post is in response to Stryder's post 1538 in the WTC Collapses thread.

This isn't why 9/11 happened, but more why this particular truther has fought so put in so much energy in regards to all of this; I figured this would be the best thread to put it in.



Maybe, if I keep on going at it. It's not why I've fought so hard though.




Not a chance .




Yes. This is why I do it.




Those issues are important too. And perhaps they'll soon get to the point where I and others will have to drop the whole issue of 9/11 and concentrate on things of that nature. I just haven't felt that that point in time has arrived yet. To tell you the honest truth, I'm not even so concerned that the criminals are caught; it's one thing to say that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition; it's quite another to prove who did it. -However-, atleast at that point I think that people will begin to realize 'how dark the con of man' can be at times, to borrow a phrase from The Da Vinci Code, and to not be so trusting of those who are in positions of authority.

Dude...are you trying to get people to not read your posts? Why have you recently taken to posting responses from one thread in a completely different thread? Are you thinking that you should post in your response in the most appropriate thread? This is not the case. You should post your reply in the thread that it originated in. THAT is where the reader will be awaiting your response...not in some other thread. And it ain't cool to make them run all over the place trying to track you done. Stop that!

 

[Enmos]

People being people. Nothing more to it.

 

[scott3x]

Dude...are you trying to get people to not read your posts?

It depends . There are some people who I wish would leave me and my posts alone. As a general rule though, if I actually responded to someone, I generally would like them to respond back. However, I really don't want the WTC Collapses thread to become the mighty tangle that the 'there can be only one!' 9/11 thread was. So when the topic diverges from the WTC collapses, I have on occassion moved my response to a thread I felt was more appropriate or sometimes even made entirely new threads for the purpose. I've done the same thing in other forums as you may be aware of. I virtually always leave a 'put my response in x thread' link in the thread that the post I'm responding to is in so that if the person I'm responding to wants to respond, it should be relatively easy to do so.

Why have you recently taken to posting responses from one thread in a completely different thread? Are you thinking that you should post in your response in the most appropriate thread? This is not the case. You should post your reply in the thread that it originated in. THAT is where the reader will be awaiting your response...not in some other thread. And it ain't cool to make them run all over the place trying to track you down. Stop that!

Laugh . I think I explained myself fairly well above. And like I said, I virtually always leave a 'trail' to where I put the new post, so it's not so hard to track me down . In particular when it comes to the WTC collapses thread, I want it to stay on topic; i mean, the thing is already past 1,500 posts I really don't think it needs new topics added on to it

 

[scott3x]

Why the U.S. didn't attack Iraq before Afghanistan after 9/11

This post is in response to leopold99's post 1555 in the WTC Collapses thread.

Again, this post isn't why 9/11 happened, but it still deals with a why and it does concern 9/11. It also didn't deal with the WTC Collapses at all, so thought I'd put it in this thread.

The powers that be wanted to get Afghanistan first.

which brings us right back to "why didn't we go immediately when 9/11 was fresh in everyones mind and the people wanted someones ass.

First of all, the evidence that the U.S. had against foreign terrorists of any stripe being involved in 9/11 was dismal. The FBI to this day has -never- charged Osama Bin Laden with 9/11. They now say some guy who may well be mentally retarded did it; I don't really want to know what they did to him to get him to 'confess'.

Second of all, if they're going to go with the story of Osama Bin Laden being behind it, they'd have to go after him first; saying that he could wait until they 'liberated' Iraq's oil, I mean people, wouldn't have flown with the american public. Besides, there was a pipeline they wanted to install in Afghanistan and the Taliban hadn't been very cooperative...

 

[MacGyver1968]

It depends . There are some people who I wish would leave me and my posts alone. As a general rule though, if I actually responded to someone, I generally would like them to respond back. However, I really don't want the WTC Collapses thread to become the mighty tangle that the 'there can be only one!' 9/11 thread was. So when the topic diverges from the WTC collapses, I have on occassion moved my response to a thread I felt was more appropriate or sometimes even made entirely new threads for the purpose. I've done the same thing in other forums as you may be aware of. I virtually always leave a 'put my response in x thread' link in the thread that the post I'm responding to is in so that if the person I'm responding to wants to respond, it should be relatively easy to do so.




Laugh . I think I explained myself fairly well above. And like I said, I virtually always leave a 'trail' to where I put the new post, so it's not so hard to track me down . In particular when it comes to the WTC collapses thread, I want it to stay on topic; i mean, the thing is already past 1,500 posts I really don't think it needs new topics added on to it

Because that would mean more entries for your flow chart of the thread...which would mean more work for you is what I'm guessing is the reason.

 

[scott3x]

Laugh . I think I explained myself fairly well above. And like I said, I virtually always leave a 'trail' to where I put the new post, so it's not so hard to track me down . In particular when it comes to the WTC collapses thread, I want it to stay on topic; i mean, the thing is already past 1,500 posts I really don't think it needs new topics added on to it

Because that would mean more entries for your flow chart of the thread...which would mean more work for you is what I'm guessing is the reason.

Perhaps you're partially right. I've put the flowcharts on hold for a bit; basically I only go about so far as I've gotten with shaman's posts, plus another 100 or so. I'm currently working on shaman's post 1082. The reason is that I don't want the mess that was the 9/11 conspiracy thread. It had so many different topics swirling around in it, one could easily get lost. In the case of the WTC collapses thread, -most- posts actually have to do with the WTC collapses. In short, what I'd like is to keep a certain amount of organization; if the 9/11 Why thread takes off, perhaps I'll chart that too, so I won't really be saving any time; but it'll be more organized.

There are also different personality types. I actually enjoy exploring things like 'why', although I admit it's not always as easy to ascertain as how. Others may be more focused on dealing with things like 'how'. So why force people to skip through posts they have no interest in? If the interest in 9/11 was small, then I'd be all for putting every single 9/11 topic into one thread as it used to be in. However, this simply isn't the case, as the 2500 post 9/11 conspiracy thread clearly demonstrated. The WTC Collapses thread is getting pretty big too but I really don't think you can get much more specific then that. There is a point where you simply have to admit that a subject is big but that the various elements criss cross and refining things further might actually be counterproductive, just like being too specialized in a medical field may cause you to miss certain important issues in a field that's close that actually affect your own.

 

[scott3x]

U.S. just needed a pretext to invade Afghanistan


This post is in response to the 2nd part of leopold99's post 1555 in the WTC Collapses thread.

They conveniently had troops in the region before 9/11 so it really didn't take them long to get in there.

this doesn't mean a thing. we "conveniently have troops" all over the globe.

Not in such concentrations. From wikipedia's 9/11 conspiracy theories page:

Invasions

There are claims that the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was being planned before 9/11. On June 26, 2001, the Indian public affairs magazine News Insight revealed plans for a joint US-Russian invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government. It reported that India and Iran would 'facilitate' the invasion.[190] The BBC reported on September 18, 2001 that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.[191] MSNBC reported on May 16, 2002 that unspecified "U.S. and foreign sources" said President George W. Bush received plans to begin a worldwide war on al-Qaeda on September 9, 2001.[192]

Conspiracy theorists have questioned whether the Oil Factor and 9/11 provided the United States and the United Kingdom with a reason to launch a war they had wanted for some time, and suggest that this gives them a strong motive for either carrying out the attacks, or allowing them to take place. For instance, Andreas von Bülow, a former research minister in the German government, has argued that 9/11 was staged to justify the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[193] The role of 9/11 in prompting the Afghanistan invasion has been widely acknowledged; Tony Blair said to the Commons Liaison Committee in July 2002 that "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11".[194]

 

[cosmictraveler]

It is all a big game made up of arms dealers trying to make money for themselves. While millions die they thrive .

 

[Stryder]

It is all a big game made up of arms dealers trying to make money for themselves. While millions die they thrive .

There are a whole host of reasons from that, from extended foreign policy right through to drug barons controlling their territory with an iron fist. At the end of the day however it's usually the third party intelligence companies and of course the producers of armaments that prosper from it.

It unfortunately has little to do with the "WHY" for 9/11, unless it could be proven that certain contractors made good from it. (I wouldn't be surprised if someone mentions Blackwater, however for that to even have surfaced publicly means some people were previously making such inquiries into who makes money.)

 

[leopold]

First of all, the evidence that the U.S. had against foreign terrorists of any stripe being involved in 9/11 was dismal.

i agree, especially if you disregard the intelligence reports from germany, britain, denmark and the netherlands.

Second of all, if they're going to go with the story of Osama Bin Laden being behind it, they'd have to go after him first; saying that he could wait until they 'liberated' Iraq's oil, I mean people, wouldn't have flown with the american public. Besides, there was a pipeline they wanted to install in Afghanistan and the Taliban hadn't been very cooperative...

i can't understand why you are failing to see that if that was the case then why did we wait so long after 9/11 to invade?
answer that question scott.
yes indeed, the government engineers 9/11 for the purpose of inciting the people to invade then waits until it wears off to invade.
like i said before, can you even hear yourself?

 

[scott3x]

It is all a big game made up of arms dealers trying to make money for themselves. While millions die they thrive.

There are a whole host of reasons from that, from extended foreign policy right through to drug barons controlling their territory with an iron fist. At the end of the day however it's usually the third party intelligence companies and of course the producers of armaments that prosper from it.

It unfortunately has little to do with the "WHY" for 9/11, unless it could be proven that certain contractors made good from it. (I wouldn't be surprised if someone mentions Blackwater, however for that to even have surfaced publicly means some people were previously making such inquiries into who makes money.)

Proving things is rather difficult, or all of these 9/11 threads would have been done with a long time ago. All we can do in the ending is put up evidence that supports one point of view or another. Such as onlinejournal.com's The empire’s operatives exposed: The Krongards, 9/11, and Blackwater/Iraq, for instance.

 

[scott3x]

First of all, the evidence that the U.S. had against foreign terrorists of any stripe being involved in 9/11 was dismal.

i agree, especially if you disregard the intelligence reports from germany, britain, denmark and the netherlands.

Touché. Let me rephrase that- evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 is dismal .

Second of all, if they're going to go with the story of Osama Bin Laden being behind it, they'd have to go after him first; saying that he could wait until they 'liberated' Iraq's oil, I mean people, wouldn't have flown with the american public. Besides, there was a pipeline they wanted to install in Afghanistan and the Taliban hadn't been very cooperative...

i can't understand why you are failing to see that if that was the case then why did we wait so long after 9/11 to invade?

To invade Afghanistan? A war isn't executed in a day. Getting in there in less then a month is pretty fast as wars go.