To further Draugnar's point about 9/11 in simplistic, non-science terms:

Some conspiracies are not BS. We can all agree that the Kennedy assassination was extremely fishy and that the USAF has some really fucking advanced (but not alien) tech squirreled away at Groom Lake.

However, 9/11 conspiracies are complete BS. The first thing you need for a conspiracy is cause. What would ANYONE have to gain by drawing America into an Afghan war? Before anyone says "military-industrial complex" or "money", bear in mind that America invaded Iraq less than 3 years later with no apparent conspiracy, and that the Iraq War was much more costly with respect to casualties and cost than the War in Afghanistan will likely be.

Furthermore, if any motivation *does* exist to warrant the extraordinarily complex, wholesale slaughter of 3,000 Americans, it would no longer be a secret.

There is a finite limit on both the size and capability of any conspiracy, and any hypothesized 9/11 conspiracy FAR exceeds this theoretical (admittedly arbitrary) ceiling.

Looks like Gunfighter just admitted that global warming isn't a conspiracy and that's it is quite real.

Blankfuck - I have looked into the facts. I can sit down some weekend when O am feeling better and show you the heating point at which steel begins to weaken combined with the temperature jet fuel burns at (not just office furniture moron) and show it was more than sufficiently hot to cause a collapse at the point of impact. I cam them go over with you the design of the superstructure of the buildings and explain why they collapsed straight down (they didn't implode but collapsed straight down floor on floor on floor...). We can them go over building 7, how the fire spread and exactly what happened to it (which was a crumble from the side mist impacted by fire and debris, not a collapse).

See, I worked with a ton of civil engineers at a civil engineering firm at the time. I have the details and real engineers explanations. Engineers who design bridges and high rises and nuclear facilities.

So when should I enlighten you. When can you come to Cinci and be schooled by me and my civil engineer friends?

ok gunfighter. was the uss liberty a conspiracy?

an entire ship full of crew were attacked relentlessly by israel, american help nearby was ordered to stand down and let the attack go on. the president apparently said he wanted the ship to sink.

apparently when a russian spy ship showed up they decided to stop attacking it for fear the russians would release the info to the media, or something.

bonus - there was a nuclear strike on its way to egypt before the attack was called off, as this was to be blamed on egypt

so we have

american government involvement
innocent americans killed (as well as a navy ship destroyed)
with a middle eastern country to be blamed

so i guess your theories were that this kind of thing is impossible .... are completely wrong. time to reevaluate

Where you get this fucked up conspiracy that the Liberty attack was going to be blamed on Egypt is beyond me. I'm gonna start calling you Mel fucking Gibson.

But that would imply he's a delusional bigoted asswad.

So it fits perfectly.

Lee Harvey did JFK all by himself.

meeting you in person? interesting idea. i will think about it. if they really are engineers and have the ability to think critically then i am sure i can convince them that 9/11 makes no sense.

the way you are describing the collapse sounds like you are using out dated models. they originally gave us the pancake theory, but they eventually gave up on that, and went with the beams somehow falling apart by themselves theory. well whatever theory it is, i have a ream of evidence that anyone who got a legit engineering degree should be convinced by if they are thinking at all.

sometimes when people are really emotional about a subject their brain turns off. so that really would be my only concern.

http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.9836187.4488/sticker,375x360.png

Exactly. Although I was more thinking of Mel's character in 'Conspiracy Theory' with Julia Roberts and Patrick Stewart.

The Obama administration refuses to allow priest to give mass to military personnel.

a priest was denied access to a military chapel this weekend. Father Ray Leonard serves at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia but because of the government shutdown, he wasn’t allowed to go to celebrate Mass this past weekend.

He is contracted by the Defense Department to meet the spiritual needs of Catholics, but not now. The chapel doors were locked and the sign said, “Shutdown: No Catholic service till further notice.”

Father Leonard said the following:

“This is our church, Catholics have an expectation and obligation to attend Mass and we were told, ‘No you can’t go to church this week…“ My parishioners were upset. They were angry and dismayed. They couldn’t believe that in America they’d be denied access to Mass by the government.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp had this reaction:

“Time and time again this Administration demonstrates it is waging a war against the very religious freedoms upon which America was founded. This is exactly why we worked to pass legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 58) this past weekend – to protect the religious liberties of all those who bravely serve in our Armed Forces.”

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2013/10/08/priest-obama-administration-denied-mass-to-catholics.aspx

The "Christian Broadcasting Network" is probably not the best place to source if you're trying to claim people are biased against Christians.

ok i will use the spyman method and ask you some questions
1. was the uss liberty attacked by israel
2. did it call for help
3. did nearby ships receive and try to respond to that
4. was that response called off by people in the government
5. was the president involved

so if you do not agree that it was to be blamed on egypt then you do not even need that. because already we have innocent americans killed by a conspiracy involving high ranking us officials for some reason... so the theory that this is impossible has just been disproven by a counterexample

Blankflag, are you seriously this stupid?

He used a big word. Counterexample. I'm actually mildly impressed, usually he doesn't manage that.

"Where you get this fucked up conspiracy that the Liberty attack was going to be blamed on Egypt is beyond me."

Hmm... that may be because that's what a lot of the survivors who were actually shot at believe.

"What would ANYONE have to gain by drawing America into an Afghan war?"

How about:
1) Control of one of the world's biggest opium crops, and the billions of dollars in revenue that represents.
2) Access to the markets of the Turkish states in Central Asia (something like 150 million consumers, plus lots of mineral resources).
3) An excellent base from which to threaten Russia militarily.
4) A pipeline for Caspian oil through AfPak, and from there to the world market
5) Hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts for friends of Dick Cheney *on top of* the hundreds of billions they were already going to get for Iraq.
There. That's five reasons. I'm sure if I spent a few more minutes we could get up to 20.

@ Tolstoy

Fine. *If* there is a conspiracy, it's a ridiculously ineffective and unrealistic one. Oh yeah, and all it involves is taking and *holding* the one region of the world that has been a graveyard of empires for centuries.

The reasons also don't explain how the conspiracy hasn't been unraveled yet. Like I said previously, we can all agree that there is a finite ceiling on the size and power of a given conspiracy.

It's been made pretty clear by now that Iraq was a war for oil, at this point. Of course, none of this requires 9/11 to have been a conspiracy - an outside event that was capitalized on is a far more cogent explanation.

http://suggestsmagic.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/wackadoodle.gif

Note. This pipeline which the 9-11 inside jobbers think 9-11 was about is not even close to being constructed, thanks to the war. The US already had access to Central Asia through Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, not to mention Pakistan. The Taliban was a much better proxy to attack Russia with than the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, and was already supporting the Chechens there.

At least 3 of these "reasons" are total nonsense.

"so if you do not agree that it was to be blamed on egypt then you do not even need that. because already we have innocent americans killed by a conspiracy involving high ranking us officials for some reason... so the theory that this is impossible has just been disproven by a counterexample"

Or Israel mistook it for an Egyptian ship. In war those mistakes occur as it did in this case.

Iraq was not about oil. Iraq was designated for destruction in 1989. It just took 14 years to complete the task.

His third question is two questions he expects the answer to be the same to in regards to the Liberty.

No, there was no distress call. The attack was over and done *very* quickly when the pilots reported the Liberty had Latin markings, not Arabic.

No, there were no American ships in the area.

So now you are left with, the Liberty was attacked by the Israelis. Everything else in your theory is a fabrication.

Actually upon deeper reading, there was a distress call received by the sixth fleet. But the issue was their aircraft were all carrying nukes. Dangerous thing to send into a skirmish unless you *want* WWIII to break out.

"*If* there is a conspiracy, it's a ridiculously ineffective and unrealistic one. Oh yeah, and all it involves is taking and *holding* the one region of the world that has been a graveyard of empires for centuries."

No, it was entirely effective. The United States was drawn into Afghanistan. We're still there. Five more Americans will be coming home in body bags in the next day or two, in fact. As for the reputation of Afghanistan as the Graveyard of Empires, I'm sure every invader was thinking something along the lines of "we're not going to make the same mistakes as the last empire when *we* invade. This time it will be different..." The American strategy obviously wasn't to carpet bomb, drop mines everywhere, and try to Sovietize Afghan society - I would imagine Rumsfeld and the other dim bulbs that the heavy hand of the Soviets was their undoing, and a lighter touch would work this time.

"This pipeline which the 9-11 inside jobbers think 9-11 was about is not even close to being constructed, thanks to the war."

I'm sure this was described not as war but as "unforeseen difficulties" at the Unocal shareholder meetings.

"The US already had access to Central Asia through Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, not to mention Pakistan."

There is no road to Uzbekistan or Kyrgystan from Pakistan except through Afghanistan. There may've been US-aligned satraps there, but good feelings do not an economically viable trade route make.

"The Taliban was a much better proxy to attack Russia with than the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan"

How many F-16s did the Taliban have? The occasional terrorist attack on Russian soil by Chechen rebels may have been an annoyance, but did not present the kind of real and serious military threat that a well-supplied American military presence in Afghanistan (via Pakistan) would have been. And I question just how much support the Taliban was in a position to give to anyone else anyway - forget not that they did not even control all of Afghanistan, much of what they did control was through warlords of extremely dubious loyalty, was still at war with the Northern Alliance, and was involved in a low-intensity conflict with Iran. Doesn't sound like they were in much of a position to decisively influence a conflict over a thousand miles away.

"Or Israel mistook it for an Egyptian ship. In war those mistakes occur as it did in this case."

Not a very plausible explanation if the Liberty survivors' accounts are accepted as true.

"I'm sure this was described not as war but as "unforeseen difficulties" at the Unocal shareholder meetings."

Unocal got out of the project in 1999. Anyway, the Taliban wanted the pipeline deal. This could have been done a long time ago. The only thing that got in the way was the war. Your point here makes no sense. The war has been a disaster for the pipeline deal.

"There is no road to Uzbekistan or Kyrgystan from Pakistan except through Afghanistan."

Indeed, and the Taliban regime was much more friendly to Pakistani commerce than the anti-Taliban forces, which despise Pakistan.

"There may've been US-aligned satraps there, but good feelings do not an economically viable trade route make."

And how exactly does a warzone help build an economically viable trade route, pray tell?

"And I question just how much support the Taliban was in a position to give to anyone else anyway - forget not that they did not even control all of Afghanistan, much of what they did control was through warlords of extremely dubious loyalty, was still at war with the Northern Alliance, and was involved in a low-intensity conflict with Iran. Doesn't sound like they were in much of a position to decisively influence a conflict over a thousand miles away."

They were in much better position to influence the region than the Rabbani government which was in power before the Taliban came to power, which is why the US government hailed its coming to power. They were also in better position than the Karzai government now. Russia was sufficiently concerned about the Taliban's growing influence in Chechnya to issue a number of dire warnings to Kabul, ditto India.

"Not a very plausible explanation if the Liberty survivors' accounts are accepted as true."

Or perhaps the fog of war created very different perceptions of what happened among different parties, as occurs in war.