It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"They didn't think the buildings would collapse..."

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The plane impacts did not, but the plane impact also started the fires, which then started a chain of events that led to the collapse. This is what the official reports state.


Do you have FBI crime scene reports that state the impacts and fires caused the collapse?





[edit on 16-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Do you have FBI crime scene reports that state the impacts and fires caused the collapse?


Do I have access to the FBI crime scene reports that havent been released yet? Ummm... no.


But, oddly enough, I DO have access to the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, and the 911 commission reports that all say the following:

The plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed But, oddly enough, I DO have access to the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, and the 911 commission reports that all say the following:


Its just too bad they are not the official reports. The only official reports are from the FBI and NTSB.

Also i have proven the NIST reports have contridicted themselves on several occasions. NIST reports have stated the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to cause the collapse.

The 9/11 commission (who hired NIST to do reports) report did not agree with or publich all of NISTs findings.




[edit on 16-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NIST reports have stated the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to cause the collapse.


You have stated this exact thing many times. Please show us which report stated that very statement. You can search every NIST report, and not once find the term "did not get hot enough or burn long enough".

Their reports clearly state, in more than one area, that the plane impacts, and resulting fires, stated a chain of events that led to the collapse. It has always stated that (if you look at archives documents at the NIST site).

Which report says "did not get hot enough or burn long enough"?


The only official reports are from the FBI and NTSB.


So the 911-commission report, created by congressional legislation, and signed by the president, is not an official report?


[edit on 16-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Seriously - Ultima - read what people are trying to tell you.

A plane crashes into a building, stresses (if not shears off) a number of supports and their joints. It also starts fires through the structure which heats the steel supporting it... weakens it... especially at the joints (which are bolted and bracketed - must I say that anymore? That is the structural equivalent of making a house out of plastic and school glue... there are going to be problems when "exceeding normal operational parameters" - it has that dramatic of an effect on the performance of a structure).

All it takes is one segment of the building to start its collapse - and the rest of the building follows. No explosives, fusion weapons, proton torpedoes, or magic necessary. Would make for an interesting movie, though. Find out that the USS Enterprise came back in time and decided to manipulate our governments from behind the scenes so they could make their way back home, to their own time using our technology. So, they instigate another war by firing proton torpedoes, fusion mines, and using mind-control devices to cause pilots to spontaneously fly planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon.

Since wars breed technological advances... this would be just the thing they need to get home.

Although I like my "Bean counters killed the WTC" conspiracy better... that one has a lot of circumstantial evidence to back it up. We have the UFOs that are seen... those mysterious "Earth lights" (it's them testing their guided plasma weapons, I tell you!)....



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
You have stated this exact thing many times. Please show us which report stated that very statement. You can search every NIST report, and not once find the term "did not get hot enough or burn long enough".

So the 911-commission report, created by congressional legislation, and signed by the president, is not an official report?




1. This is one NIST report that states from the steel recovered that the fires were not that hot and did not burn that long.

wtc.nist.gov...

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.


2. By law the the FBI and NTSB are the official investigating agencies for 9/11.

Also people on the 9/11 commission have stated they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.



[edit on 16-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
That works on the pieces of metal that have paint....

Considering that many of your primary supports and brackets are not painted, it is rather limited in its scope of relevance.

Also, I have some issues with the cracking of paint being an indicator of thermal expansion (or of temperatures).

Also - recall what I said about the brackets. Remember, you have several hundred tons of force distributed across a total surface area that is probably less than the table your monitor is sitting on. This is also across a round surface... so we have even more to consider in how much point-force is applied.

Let's say I heat that steel bracket... it's softer now. Maybe not by much... but... that relatively small bolt compared to the amount of force being exerted on both it, and the contact-area of the bracket.... combined with a little swaying of the tower from the wind .... starts to act like a knife working its way through a piece of wax.

A couple major supports failing along the impact zone would be enough to trigger a collapse..... and, as I've stated before... once any part of it starts to go - the whole thing will follow, regardless of what damage it has sustained.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Further digging yields that the structure would likely have been condemned in another few years because of the way that bolts rapidly degrade over time. The relative size of the structure shares a near exponential relationship to the rate at which the structure degrades (if it's bigger - it usually degrades MUCH faster).


Who would have known this before 9/11 and when?

I propose the possibility that the engineers who decided to "cut corners" in the construction of the towers, may have warned the financer of the project what the results would be over time, if the original design was changed in favor of the cheaper bolts. This then opens two further possibilities to examine. One, that the owner (project financer) knew that the buildings were only to serve a temporary purpose from the very beginning of the project. The owner would then have no concern for the longevity of the structures, only the immediate cost savings. In this scenario a plan to deflect liability would have already been calculated. The second possibility is that the owner began the project without any pre-conceived notions of the sort, but still decided to go ahead with the cost-cutting technique knowing that there would be "x" number of years to plan and execute the deflection of liability while turning a profit in the meantime.

The next possibility, pushing aside what I stated above, comes years after the project was completed. I am not sure of the legalities or specific requirements, but I would venture to say that the buldings were subject to inspection from time to time both by government agencies and privately by the owners own personnel. If the buildings were in such poor condition, due to poor construction, that they would be condemned in a matter of years and eventually collapse on their own, this surely would have been reported upon such inspection. I cannot say how routine the inspections may have been mandated, but a thorough inspection must have been completed after the bombing of 1993. This line of thinking leads me to the possiblity that a plan to alleviate liability would have been formulated when such a report was presented.

Coincidentally, Mayor Rudolph Guliani who became "America's Mayor" on 9/11 took office in November of 1993, just after the bombing. Did the city administration know that the Twin Towers were becoming unsafe?

If one believes allegations that the FBI had previous knowledge that the attack was going to occur (wikipedia) could this "false-flag op" have been a test of, or a deliberate weakening of the structural integrity?

Also keep in mind that David Rockefeller, who is a known architect of the NWO, championed the idea of the construction of the WTC back in the 60's and remained the projects most powerful supporter. In an address to the Trilateral Commission during a 1991 meeting, David Rockefeller stated the following:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranatural sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
The design theory of the WTC was, and still is, great. It is just that money and time were seen as more important than structural integrity.

You must also understand the mentality of the "bean counters". Most of them lack engineering degrees or exchanged their brains for a seat on a company's board of directors. But, they got an exponential return on that investment with regards to ego.

"Why weld that structure and take all that time? A bolt and bracket goes on quicker, costs less labor, and puts the two pieces of metal together, right? So what is all of this nonsense these engineers keep babbling about needing to weld? Do they forget who they work for?"

That is, essentially, the mentality. It is present all across the industry. Many lathes and drill presses are subject to this - many cheap models run great for the first few hundred hours of use... then they degrade and get horribly inaccurate because of the lack of tension springs in the bearings (which keeps the bearing snug and keeps it from wobbling during operation). Thus - that machine is inferior to a slightly more expensive version with more quality bearings in it.

The Bean Counters ultimately sign the checks and order forms - so you get stuck with whatever they see fit - you simply make recommendations. They have some snake of a person looking to see if they can find the "same" thing for cheaper... and if they find it - that's what you get.

Customer support is also a fine example of this same concept. The Bean Counters see it as nothing but a useless expenditure of money with no direct returns on the investment. So it's the first thing to go in the event the budget gets tight.

It's not that there was any conspiracy with the government to kill the structure. It's simply the way businesses all through western influence behave.

It should also be noted that there were inspections done on the WTC and they were not so good looking for the building. But - that's bad for commerce, so those types of things were pushed back into the corner. No one wants to buy a business slot in the WTC if it's going to be condemned and deconstructed (and, no, not through explosives).

Nothing criminal or incriminating about it. It's simply politics and marketing all converging on one event in one of the worst possible ways.

Industry/marketing has begun moving away from the Bean Counter philosophy, after witnessing many of the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Chinese businesses fare much better in the long run by looking 10 or more years in the future, instead of looking only to the next quarter.

We have been increasing the coordination between our various government agencies and military intelligence branches, and we have been making strides forward in preventing all of this from happening again.

You don't need CIA ninjas and magic for all of this. It's simply just how real-life events work. There is hardly ever a 'climax' - where it turns out it was all a sham. Most of the time stuff like this is pretty dull and stupid. Someone stuck a post-it-note under their desk and forgot about it. FBI having marital problems with the CIA, some General caring more about how he looked as opposed to his duties as a commanding officer.... just general, stupid, stuff that makes you sigh, close your eyes, and hang your head.

The only parts of life that have 'climaxes' are with your friends and goofing around/having fun. Otherwise... the sad truth of life is... it's dull. We get up, go to work, come home, got to sleep.... rinse, lather, repeat. But looking for entertainment and drama where there is none can yield some very unpleasant, albeit unexpected, results.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


The "bean counter mentality" has indeed been pervasive all throughout American industry for many years now. This cannot be disputed. However, the modus operandi also extends to liability in general and the insurance industry in particular. Shoddy workmanship does not end with buildings collapsing, or tires blowing out on the freeway.

If a car company marginalizes safety in favor of profit, this is a calculated risk. It will be cheaper to settle the projected number of lawsuits than to re-tool the factory. The only thing that makes the WTC conspiracy any different, is how spectacular and thorough the deflection of liability was. Thousands of people died all at once, all in one place, instead of in death-trap vehicles across the country over the course of several years.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
That works on the pieces of metal that have paint....

Also, I have some issues with the cracking of paint being an indicator of thermal expansion (or of temperatures).

Also - recall what I said about the brackets. Remember, you have several hundred tons of force distributed across a total surface area that is probably less than the table your monitor is sitting on. This is also across a round surface... so we have even more to consider in how much point-force is applied.


So are you stating the NIST report is wrong?

If this NIST report is wrong how many others are wrong?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
And we found out in the 1940s that atoms had a nucleus that wasn't solid and could be split (hence the nuclear bomb).... so how much else is wrong with science?

I never said I completely agreed with everything in ANY reports. I simply know what I saw - a very large plane slamming into a very large building, lots of fire and smoke, and eventually the building fell down. Which does not come as a surprise to me.

The NIST report isn't necessarily wrong, as much as it is that I find the method they chose as being somewhat inaccurate. They simply did what they could to try and get some data to work with.

They said, themselves, that there simply wasn't time to do a completely thorough investigation. There hardly ever is. In many investigations of this type - you have a lot of debris in the middle of where people normally work, commute, etc - you have to get it cleaned up. You do as good of an investigation as you can in the time you have... and you have to pack your toys up and bring it home.

Does it mean they thought there was something amiss? Not really. It's just that every investigator wants to have as complete of a picture as they can, and they are always disgruntled when they can't do a full investigation. Especially on something as moving as the 9/11 attacks. You want as complete of a record as you can have, because it was such an important event in history.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
I never said I completely agreed with everything in ANY reports. I simply know what I saw - a very large plane slamming into a very large building, lots of fire and smoke, and eventually the building fell down. Which does not come as a surprise to me.


You may have seen a plane hit the building but that does not mean the plane brought it down.

All the reports and evidence i have state the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You may have seen a plane hit the building but that does not mean the plane brought it down.

All the reports and evidence i have state the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse.


This may come as a surprise to you, but I honestly don't see any real credibility in your sources, claims, etc. Nor do I see a very firm grasp on reality.

Trust me, I'm a paranoid guy - I like suspecting people of doing stuff behind my back or trying to 'play mind games' with me. But, so far, I'm getting that feeling from the 9/11 Truth movement (in general). I ran across it in my young days, right after 9/11, and I gave it its time.

It started off with "what are these two glints of light on the bottom of the plane from? Could they have been a modification to allow them to store more fuel or a bomb?" .... That is how it all started, more or less. Then it just started getting further and further out there.

I wasn't always against it. I was intrigued by a number of the arguments in relation to "the dimensions of the plane don't allow for it to strike all of these poles, and hit this object here, and then hit the pentagon" - it was an interesting question. But, being into aviation, myself, and flying planes on various simulators since I was five... I know how flight can be kind of funky. I started digging - and I arrived at a number of various conclusions - none involving a plane other than the one that hit the pentagon; no missiles - no bombs... just a plane.

So, I've been with this stuff since its beginning. I may not agree with every single little fact in a report - but that doesn't mean the end conclusion is at all wrong.

I don't know how old you are - but, I used to think pretty similarly when I was younger. I used to be "all or nothing" with approaches to personality, reports, and... well - everything. But as I've gotten older, and as I've been experiencing life.... I've learned that this isn't the case.

I can watch an episode of Myth Busters, and disagree with one of the conclusions made in their episodes (from personal experience). Does it mean I believe all of their conclusions, thus, are wrong?

Of course not. It means that one of their little experiments they did failed to stack up to some of my own personal experience in the real world.

And I simply find my own personal experience to be counter to a number of the fundamental elements of many 9/11 conspiracy arguments, as well. A lot of your reports that you have given me, I disagree with, because my own personal experience states otherwise. I can't give you this experience, or my instincts. I can only tell you about them. And it gets harder and harder for you to understand, the more removed your own experience is from the subject matter.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
I don't know how old you are - but, I used to think pretty similarly when I was younger. I used to be "all or nothing" with approaches to personality, reports, and... well - everything. But as I've gotten older, and as I've been experiencing life.... I've learned that this isn't the case.


Well if you must know i am 46, have a background in aviation and law enforcement. Now i am analyst with the government. I have been doing research on 9/11 since day 1 and have access to lots of government resources.

What evidence of mine do you have a problem with, becasue i have a lot more i can post? I also have FOIA request in with the following

FBI
NTSB
NIST
NSA

I also have e-mailed the companies that were at groing zero, so i probably have a lot more actual facts and evidence then most people on this forum.




[edit on 18-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
For starters, I'd like to see evidence that the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel.

Also, I would like to see some additional tests done elsewhere that can verify the method used to determine this. In short - I'm looking to make sure the method used is reliable.

And, really that is what is lacking from every argument for the 9/11 "truth" movement in general. It's not that they lack a report or an expert opinion - it's that they lack experimentation to verify a claim, a report, or a method.

From my own personal experience, I know that metals can be rather finicky when heated - and so can paint. It can be inaccurate. You also have the fact that it's limited to painted metals. I would like to see additional tests done to verify this method as accurate.

For instance - the grade of steel used in the core and used in the external mesh are different. The softer exterior will melt at a lower temperature than the internal. Because their compositions are different, they will also expand at different rates in relation to the paint. The webbing is also of a lower grade steel than the external mesh - and would behave differently.

Did the NIST report take all of these into account? I don't know. What about different types of paint, different thicknesses of paint? What about the temperature of the metal upon observation?

A million different variables that can be tested. Had I the means to test such things, myself, reliably (as in reliably heat up a piece of metal to a temperature in excess of 500 degrees) - then I would, and I would test a number of different variables to see how this affected the result.

The idea is nice, and is pretty sharp - but the way it is described in the report, says to me "we came up with this method on-the-fly to simply try and give the computer nerds a number to punch in on their computers - to get them to leave us alone." (yes, I added a little bit of comedy in there - but you get the idea).

If it turns up to be pretty reliable - then we still have the issue that it was limited only to painted columns, and only to the sampled columns (as not all were sampled or could be sampled). So we run into yet another problem of "what does this mean?" Because I can take a cutting torch and cut right through some steel tubing and barely warm the metal five feet away (in relation to the temperature that the area being cut reaches - don't grab the metal five feet away, thinking it won't be hot - because you just might be wrong, and I don't want to hear someone call me up, crying, saying "Aim told me it would barely be warm!").



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I think it is more important to examine some of the possibilites that I have posted here on this thread, than arguing the same old argument about wether or not the buildings fell on their own. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever try to find out, but obviously that door has been intentionally closed for now. I am more concerned about the high probablity that 9/11 was not entirely an al-Qaeda plot.

I think that the Twin Towers may have indeed collapsed on their own due to the state of deterioration resulting from last-minute cost-cutting desing changes. I am willing to accept that for now. But what about WTC-7, the Pentagon, flight 93? Clearly there is more evidence there pointing toward a greater conspiracy.

Given the clear evidence that al-Qaeda did not plan for the attack to have such devastaing results, that it would in fact be directly against their objectives, I think we must begin to re-examine 9/11 as a whole. I think al-Qaeda flew planes into the towers, and that's it. I think it may have been a missile that hit the Pentagon, and I'm really up in the air so to speak on flight 93.

Any input on that?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Well, it's rather broad.

For instance, you have the 'problem' that everyone in America (and most of the world) ultimately has a free mind. While there are a large majority of people in America and in our Government who would never allow such a thing to happen, knowingly - you do have those who would see it as a "sacrifice for the greater good".... which, could be argued.

The U.S. was allowing its military to fall into shambles, its intelligence agencies were falling apart, and the media was down-playing the many terrorist attacks on our embassies abroad.

You could have a few individuals in the upper military or agency rankings that might have 'let it slide' in some way, shape, or form. But that is going out on a very outstretched limb.

You have some corporate entities that might have seen a benefit to this... but... again - you really run into the problem of "very few people would really go that far."

It is hard to really start 'pointing fingers'.... and point them accurately. Of course, the President is the most hated person in the world, even if he were to crap rainbows and pure happiness out for the people - so he's automatically suspect - no matter who he is, what party, etc.

And all of your upper level agency members become suspects immediately, as well as upper level military members.

But, I think that's rather foolish to start pointing fingers there. While, yes, they may have their own views, and political objectives... they also have very sensitive jobs and would be the first to have fingers pointed at them no matter what happened (hell, people blame the President for hurricanes, now, too - I don't know what sane person would want to run for president anymore) - while that doesn't remove them from blame, automatically - it does mean that there are certainly reasons for them to not participate in a conspiracy of that manner - no matter how twisted they are - it is a very, very large gamble.

And, if you begin digging deeper into the workings of many government agencies and military command structures - you find it is the middle-level management who are probably the most powerful. They have their own opinions and ideals, and are often in charge of a number of subordinates that almost unquestioningly perform their duties (maybe not even knowing what their work is going towards - as part of security measures).

So, it is possible a middle level manager could have stumbled upon the plot, and either let it slide - or saw it as a good way to 'wake America up'.... However, that is not necessarily likely. It would be more likely that such an individual had links to an AQ cell to begin with, if they were involved.

It's not impossible... but I don't find it all that likely. But - like I said - there are those out there who will stop at little to obtain what they want... and it can often be hard to distinguish those people from everyone else, until they start building a little bit of power underneath them to demonstrate they are corrupt.

Regardless of whether or not someone was being debilitating to our intelligence community's capability to intercept this terrorist plot or not - there were a number of things that were going on that should not have been going on within our agencies. The FBI and CIA were not effectively communicating (this is still a problem within the military - many forms of communication are poorly implemented or not properly maintained/understood by the people operating them - as a person used to working with networked databases, this frustrates me to no end - because it's not that hard, and they make it look like rocket science). We are improving... slowly - but eventually, our agencies will miss another one. It may not be for another fifty years. It may be tomorrow.

So, it is likely there may have been AQ informants or operatives inside of our own agencies; but a third-party knowing about it and 'letting it slide', or 'assisting' it in any way begins to really stretch some limits.

That doesn't mean there weren't those who profited from 9/11 - that is part of what makes America (and people, in general) amazing - is the ability to bounce back after a catastrophe. I forget what bank it was (I do believe it is the Bank of America) was founded on the ashes of San Francisco (Or was it LA?...) after an Earthquake destroyed most of the town back in the early parts of the 20th century. A rather quick-witted man took the money with him when he abandoned his bank - rather than leave it in the safe - and he returned and started offering loans while other banks were waiting for their safes to cool so they could open them.

So, it's in our history that we turn disasters into profit (usually mutual) - but we didn't necessarily engineer those disasters, either.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




Regardless of whether or not someone was being debilitating to our intelligence community's capability to intercept this terrorist plot or not - there were a number of things that were going on that should not have been going on within our agencies. The FBI and CIA were not effectively communicating (this is still a problem within the military - many forms of communication are poorly implemented or not properly maintained/understood by the people operating them - as a person used to working with networked databases, this frustrates me to no end - because it's not that hard, and they make it look like rocket science). We are improving... slowly - but eventually, our agencies will miss another one. It may not be for another fifty years. It may be tomorrow.


I think this ill-communication is deliberate and further facilitates "compartmentalization" making the truth far more easily obscured and with plauseable deniability of the facts by those who are orchestrating history.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Let us consider for a moment, that Bush actually really is a hero who really believes he really is doing the very best job he can in service to the American people. There's a lot of stuff to put aside, like his family connections to Nazi Germany, and the bin-Laden family, but let's just wave the flag for now.

Let us also suppose that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "false-flag" attack, to get America into the war. Looking back into history, it would be difficult to declare that such an attack could not be excused. As sad as it is, those sailors and airmen did commit their lives to protecting the citizens of the United States, as was their sworn duty to do. How many of them would not have sacrificed themselves if FDR had personally asked them to, to save millions of American lives from the Nazi onslought and "divine right" imperialism? Pearl Harbor may have been a necessary evil, as sad as it is. It usually takes a "false-flag" to get America to go to war. Perhaps that is the penalty for being a Democracy. There is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that FDR and others did know about the attack before it took place.

Back to 9/11 again, and to the portrayal of an honest administration. Let us also be clear that the intelligence agencies are not the bungling idiots thay some time lead us to believe. What if their estimates put us at war within ten years. A world-war. Quite feasably over oil. Not oil profits even, but the oil itself. What if Bush was suddenly made to realize that Asia, China in particular, would soon be in a position to subordinate the U.S. Some people have claimed that the war in Iraq is being deliberately drawn out to raise oil profits by depriving the global market of Iraqi supplies. But what if the US is going to need that oil to fight WWIII? Not for profit, but to preserve the American way of life.

When I look at it through that lense, I find myself becoming more objective to the facts of 9/11. It may have been a necessary evil. After all, citizens elect representatives to practice democracy. We are not the democracy ourselves. They are the paid professionals who are supposed to know what is best, and to study which courses of action to follow, so that the rest of us can go and do our own jobs.

Food for thought anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join