9/11: Planned by the Gov't? Serious posts only.

More like the Illuminati, in my perspective.

 

I've talked about this lately with my bro's and parents while dinner.

9/11 was the fault of terrorists, still the war against afghanistan is planned by the USA.
I think the USA needed a reason to get oil from these country's, and they use the war as a reason to be in those country's.
Remember, everything is about oil, money, and power these days.

 

I'm fed up with the conspiracy theories. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that our government, as corrupt as they are, would be so desperate that they'd plan a "terrorist" attack on their own country. I still think we're above that.

Edit: just noticed -

You sir, are clearly a moron.

 

are you saying pearl harbour was a government thing aswell?

I SAW THE MOVIE AND IT WASNT LIKE TAHT AT ALL

 

While 9/11 definitely wasn't gov. planned, the terrorists should have made sure the gov couldn't use the attack to their advantage, the gov made sure the attack was the start of the war on terror and several other things, giving the US immunity

Honestly, I think this is a major overreaction. the following occurrences
Haiti earthquake - 230,000 deaths
Japan Earthquake - 15,000 deaths
and others have a death toll surpassing 9/11 hundreds of times, yet almost nobody cares here in the US. the entirety of 9/11 is rather a miserable failiure by my standards

 

Oreally, USA above that? Atleast you gave me a good laugh. Be realistic and realize how good the attack was for the politics, they accused Saddam for having links with Al-Qaida and it's kind of what triggered the war - 8 years laters though, we haven't seen any proof of Saddam's link with Al-Qaida...People forget things easy. Oh well.

 

What happen during 9/11 is an average day for many people in warzones - Led by Usa. If people don't feel sorry for the civilians that are begin targets why would I even care about what happen during 9/11?

 

Not at all. It is highly probable that the US had some knowledge that the attack would take place as our intelligence services are very good (perhaps too good). However the government gets 100s of threats and possible attacks everyday. They do their best to sort through what is real and what is not.

Every theory supporting why the government must have been involved can easily be rebuffed.

 

Except the earthquakes naturally happen, and 9/11 was a terror attack. Those two cannot even be compared.

 

Pearl Harbor was WW2.
Pearl Harbor was most likely "planned," but only in the sense that a select few people knew it was a likely target and chose not to adequately defend it. Lusitania was foolish and provocative certainly, but once again it was at most an attempt to provoke, and possibly a foolish navigation error. Gulf of Tonkin was, if I remember correctly, once again a provocative action, but it was the U.S. who was attacking (might be wrong).

These might have been stupid, and sacrificed the lives of U.S. citizens (obviously a bad thing, and debatably taking power that didn't belong to them), but nevertheless, there is a large distinction between putting them in harms way and letting them get killed by an enemy, and killing them yourselves.

 

There will always be information that needs to be withheld from the public. I believe a good majority public is too stupid to be told everything that goes on in the goverment.

....

Thank you for pointing out the obvious

You've got to be kidding lol...

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "9/11 is an average day for many people in warzones - Led by Usa". And, I'm not sure but, in the second part of your sentence, if you're saying you don't care about what happened during 9/11, you shouldn't be in any position to call it a conspiracy theory.

THANK YOU

 

First of all, I meant WWII, sorry about that.

Second, war makes the most money, that's a fact.

And you don't need to call me a moron, maybe you should ask me why I think that Pearl Harbor was a false-flag event? Don't just shoot me down without asking.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

Before Pearl Harbor, the US was official neutral in the war but president Franklin D. Roosevelt secretly wanted to get involved. Pearl Harbor was a pawn of the government, whose bombing was induced to justify the US’ involvement in the Second World War.

- The US enacted an embargo on Japan, restricting all trade.

- They gave aid to China, who was currently at war with Japan.

On November 26, 1941 Secretary of State Hull presented "peace terms" to the Japanese. The terms presented by Hull were such that in order for Japan to agree to them they would have had to withdraw from China, and essentially end all hostilities, something that they knew was not going to happen.

Also, by going to war with Japan, they would also be going to war with Germany due to Japan and Germany's alliance.

So don't say I'm a moron when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Source:

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

 

1. Everything you've just stated (including the accusations made in the link you provided) are entirely speculation.

2. We're digressing from the OP. The argument was on whether or not the 9/11 Attacks were a US Government conspiracy. If you want to argue Pearl Harbor, make a separate thread for it.

 

Tell me then, why did Japan attack us? Because we're a free and prosperous nation?

And I feel this is relevant to the thread, both were events that led us into going to war.

 

I don't believe it was some talibans from a cave that did that no, and about the explaination you wanted, check out what people went through during afghan/iraq war.

 

I think it was planned to cover up the spending that wasn't accounted for.

 

Wars do not make the most money. Their expenses almost always outweigh any financial gains.

You're getting information from a website called rationalrevolution.net... need I say more?

You're looking for conspiracies, you're searching out sources that support them, so of course you're going to find them. Except what you don't realize is that for every source you find agreeing with your view, there's 100 more than refute it with facts, along with common sense, something you clearly seem to be lacking in.

 

Wars make the most money for bankers, for countries have to borrow money to fight in a war.

It shouldn't matter what the site comes from because there's actual documents on the site that support the argument.

And just because this theory is outnumbered doesn't automatically dismiss it as the truth. You could have a huge dick and 99 people could tell you it was small and 1 could tell you it was big, in the end you'll think it's small but in reality it would be huge. Kind of like that. The majority isn't always correct you know.

 

So what you're saying is that even though you're wrong it doesn't mean you're wrong and so that means your right?


hmm.... It doesn't matter whether it's the majority, it's the facts that actually matter.

 

Please, tell me a single person who's claimed this. What ever happened to:

?

We were making a good deal of money selling supplies prior to our actual entrance into the war (it helped to get us out of the depression, you know).

No it wasn't, we were helping to supply the Allies, and by encouraging us to do this, FDR was making it pretty clear that he wanted us to become involved in the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Exactly, we weren't neutral. We supported the Allies above the imperialists of Japan and fascists of Europe.

Right. So we weren't neutral.

Naturally.

Your argument makes no sense. You're essentially saying that:

1) The US was neutral in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor
2) The US was not neutral in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor
3) By not being neutral, we worried Japan to the point that they wanted to preform a preemptive strike against us
4) Because Japan attacked us due to our policies, this somehow qualifies as a false flag event

I accept the second and third premises (though our non-neutrality hardly made it likely that Japan would attack us, and I should hope to god that we weren't neutral when Asia and Europe were being conquered by tyrants), but the fourth simply does not follow.

What the hell sort of analogy is this?