Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
Yes, I'd like to discuss an issue that is much more cut and dry. Why where there drills on 9/11 depicting planes flying into buildings? I've seen multiple mainstream news reports of these events, and even Rumsfeld and Myers were questioned about it so there's no doubt the drills did happen.
With the 9/11 commission's claim that 9/11 was above all a failure of imagination (no one thought that planes could be used as missles, we all heard it), how could they totally ignore this glaring problem with the 9/11 story? This means either A. total incompetence therefore making the 9/11 report and suggestions null and void, or B. a 9/11 cover-up. These events were just to important to be excluded from the report. I'd like your comments on this please.
|
my comments would closely follow rekna's
Quote:
|
The government has not been completly truthfull about 9/11 but I do not believe they in any way orchistrated it. Planes did hit the buildings and cause them to colapse. What else is being proposed here? Our government somehow managed to load the building up with explosives on the supports without anyone noticing? What the government has not been truthful about is it's knowledge before, during, and after. It had enough info to probably stop the attack but ignored the warning signs because they had a "we are America and it can never happen mentality" So in some sense there was a coverup but the coverup was not of some mass conspiracy but instead of a mass blundering done at all levels of the government. In addition the administration saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push it's agenda and acted accordingly, i would not be surprised if their was a meeting within days of 9/11 that discussed how they can use 9/11 and the emotions of people to push their agenda. Anyway thats my 2 cents because it is the explaination that is the simplest and fits the evidence as I see it.
|
We all know the government had some kind of intel pointing towards this. The whole partiot act comes from the fact that they had the intel, but had difficulties acting on it because of barriers put up (by a previous administration). Between barriers in sharing information and the "it can't happen here" mentality this catastrophy was "allowed" to happen. An embarresment it is. To minimalize the embarresment politicians act in less than honest ways. But to take that and spin it into a conspiracy theory that 767s really didn't hit the WTC or there were bombs set up for a controlled demolition is, how can I put this, ludacris.
What is more embarresing than the fact these attacks happend is the fact that there are people who believe the government orchestrated it. Its an embarresment to america and an insult to the victims and their families. Quite frankly, is a prime illustration of the guilt some people carry. A guilt they try to reconcile by not blaming the terrorists actually involved, but blaming the government, in a way to say, "see its not my fault," when they feel it actually is.
I'm not saying this is america's falut. But some of my fellow countrymen do carry that burden unnecessarily, and to deal with it some act as if its not the terrorist who carried out the attacks, but the government. In this way they can remove the guilt, since the terrorists didn't do it, well then, its not america's fault. Just the evil republicans.
Criticize me all you want for my armchair-psycoanalysis, I welcome it.