need help with wikipedia 11 September liars

[shruggedatlas]

I would use the analogy of watching someone who picks the lottery numbers coincidently win the 500 million dollar jackpot. Yes, granted it could just be a incredibly lucky coincidence for the person picking the numbers and nothing more; but you must admit a lot of people probably including yourself would be raising eyebrows.

It is easy to make a case from bad analogies.  A terrorist attack is not a 1 in 250 million chance, like the Powerball lottery is.  And it would not have taken the destruction of the towers to get us to attack Afghanistan.  The mere hijacking and crashing of four planes would have sufficed.

Furthermore, there were plenty of alternatives.  Let's say this is before 9/11.  I am the President, and I want to invade Iraq for money and glory.  I am so evil that I would be willing to kill thousands of American civilians to give a justification.  So what would I do?  Well, I can go ahead with this crazy plot to crash planes into buildings and hope it works (planes fly straight, pilots do not chicken out) and no one talks (if they do, I get impeached, become instantly known as the most shameful president in history, and spend the rest of my life in prison or worse, be executed under a treason or mass murder conviction).  Or, let's see, there are other options.  If I wanted to invade Iraq, I would first and foremost make sure the attacks looked like they came from Iraq, and not Al Queda or Saudi Arabia, like the 9/11 attacks did.  Moreover, I do not even need an attack.  Heck, why not manufacture WMD evidence?  Have a test nuclear explosion occur on Iraqi soil.  Plant some biological agents for the inspectors to find.  Anyway, I am sure you can think of thousands of simpler, more directly attributable to Iraq, easier to cover up, less bloody, and frankly more effective methods to get us into a war.

You cannot with the same breath grant the Administration this awesome ability to carry out this massively risky and complex plot to perfection, but take away their reasoning ability, the same ability that would have inevitably drawn them to one of hundreds of simpler and more effective alternatives, if they were in a mood to wholly manufacture reasons to get into a war with Iraq.

[chadj2]

You are once again saying the US people are so ready for war at the drop of a hat. Basically hijack and crash some planes and we will enthusiastically go invade some country and get into a guerilla war for half a decade or more. I would have to ask why we havent invaded anyone before when a terrorist attack has occurred against our citizens or soldiers? I disagree that the US would have been massively supportive of an invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq without an extremely traumatic event like "A New Pearl Harbor". You would need a massive body count. I would also take issue with you chalking this all to the President. I believe that if this event was orchastrated the President was a minor player. If the President is an advanced thinker he sure plays the role well of not being one. An event like this would take good coordination of people in key positions who can think well on their feet. You claimed that it would be easier or necessary to plant WMD evidence in Iraq or test a biological weapon or chemical or nuke in Iraq or make the terrorists look like they were from Iraq. I would submit that if this was orchastrated the planners looked at that scenario and concluded that that would be unnecessary. Observe, we didnt need to have evidence that Iraq did anything to us we simply wanted revenge on someone who looked like the alleged terrorists. We were presented with Iraq by our officials and we jumped on it. This isnt that hard to predict if you understand American psyche. Our population is not generally known for being very informed about really anything of real relevance. We are good with sports and movie stars. I acknowledge your point about there being a risk associated with carrying out any conspiracy, but that has not stopped people from carrying them out in the past in other countries and in America. I am sure that the orchastrators did a risk vs reward analysis. Dont believe this stuff about governement officials being incompetent. They are very effective and efficient with things that count. How long do you think you can get away with not paying your taxes? Do you think you can penetrate a Air force base and steal a fighter jet? Do you think it was an accident that we have cruise missiles that can go through a particular window of a structure if instructed? These people in charge are not stupid. Also, please dont oversimplify the benefits to be gained with the 9/11 attacks. If you want I can list a number of things that were gained that would have been very difficult without 9/11. Lastly, I would ask you what the terrorists gained from the 9/11 attack? Why is their balance sheet so empty in the reward category of "Risk vs Reward"? Dont just fall back on the "they were just stupid crazy terrorists." People who could carry out an attack of that complexity typically would not be that stupid and shortsighted as far as likely reactions to their attack. What have they gained other than a few more recruits? And once again how has our government been hurt in any way?

[gaby de wilde]

@Stefan,

you should just ban war apologists if they don't want to listen.

Or you end up with their paid2spam on your site.

Or did this spamer read one post written here?

I most certainly don't think so.

He is here to wreak my topic.

[gaby de wilde]

Here is the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks

please help,  the idea is to have both versions of the story on the page. The inside job and the government version.  But there is all kinds of paid help editing the wiki so I have been banned 3 times for suggesting  references. 3 times people! And I have never edited a page jet! I just made a suggestion on the talk page and they said it was to long called me a liar and locked my page! They only have limited locking abilities. I need your help! All you have to do is click edit and past some of this stuff into the page.

==no Osama means no Muslims==

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
''Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#_note-56
the FBI says: ''The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden?s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'' thus the word Muslim may only be quoted at best.

==secondary account ==

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770
''Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.''

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,1864657,00.html
''We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone," says Jones. "We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, '''by God''', we're going to get to the bottom of this.''

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html
''Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away''

For this suggestion I was banned! Can you imagine that? So, please help me take back wikipedia before Bush starts recruiting soldiers for his war against Iran. I think it's important enough for you to help me. But maybe you just want to see the fascists editing wikipedia with your own 2 eyes. Just don't forget to call them liars. We don't want their war here. We already allowed them to put half a million Iraqi woman and children in bags. We have to take some responsibility? Help fight those disgusting liars. Our American friends think they are at war with the Muslim communty, wikipedia is the propaganda bottleneck. This is where you can destroy their warmongering effort.

you have my thanks in advance and my best wishes of luck. 
[/quote]

I think the Time magazine article you cited has a pretty good rundown

No it does not, if you paid attention I used that reference to show it's possible to write both sides of the story on one page.

You are reading things out of context and you are  misbehaving. Could you act normal, by the definition of the rest of the world? Ignorance is not something to be proud of, just like patriotism is not.



That's patriotism.  It's very real, and you come tell us about how superior you are in this context?

If you don't agree with the controlled demolition theory. Then you show us your evidence of collapsed, try convince us ahh?? Your proofs are non existent?

[Topguner2]

@Stefan,

you should just ban war apologists if they don't want to listen.

Or you end up with their paid2spam on your site.

Or did this spamer read one post written here?

I most certainly don't think so.

He is here to wreak my topic.

Sure, ban everyone that does not agree with the conspiracy "theories" and "opinions" of others.