People who question the motives of the US government as to why they would allow an attack which has increased military spending, thus increasing profits for private companies should take a look at the current war on drugs - cannabis in particular.
I realise these two situations seem very different, however on inspection could be considered similar.
currently Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medicinal benefits. millions is spent on private security, prisons, police and judicial systems to prosecute and detain people who have been caught with the drug. not only is that a lot of money, it is also a lot of american jobs.
Recently drugs such as Marinol which use Cannabis as a base have been marketed and sold as medicine, with government approval. How can a drug which is classed as schedule 1 which has no medicinal benefits be approved for a pharmaceutical product fit for human consumption.
Look at who gains from keeping Cannabis illegal; Alcohol and Tobacco industries don't have a main recreational drug in competition with their sales. The big pharma industry - holding a monopoly over the medicinal market, not to mention the fact it could be easily cultivated at home, would loose a substantial amount of money/consumers if a lot of the reports we are hearing about the benefits of cannabis are indeed true.
So we have a relatively harmless substance, being prohibited under law, whose prohibition is actively generating profits for companies and industries who have large lobbies within the government; Tobacco, Alcohol, big pharma and the justice/prison industries.
The government has no problem with lying or spreading misinformation in the interest of money and profits, bare in mind many of those in power previously have been affiliated with these companies or know those who are, or go on to join them.
now substitute the war on Cannabis with 9/11 and the wars that followed, and the industries I mentioned with the private defence and arms contractors who gain a profit from increased military spending.
Compare the people who died on 9/11 to the people who die every year in cartel and blackmarket violence as a result of the continued prohibition of this drug. by continuing the prohibition, they are creating a self-deprecating criminal underworld that does kill thousands of people, maybe not all of them in America, but certainly in neighbouring countries.
I do not mean to cause offence with this, I just simply wanted to show that the Government has no qualms about lying to it's country and allow the deaths of innocent people to maintain profits and interests of certain industries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm - report on a study that found no link between lung cancer and Cannabis use
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1104848 - study that concluded that exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function
I recently wrote a paper at University about the effects of Cannabis on the mental health of users (I am a psychology student), I found a piece of research that showed that the use of Cannabis has gone up substantially in the last 30 years (something like 2000%) however the rate of diagnosis of mood disorders has remained unchanged. unfortunately I cannot find this piece of research in my notes right now but I will continue looking. point being that if Cannabis use did effect mental health we would see a dramatic increase in the number of diagnosis of these disorders (around 2000%?).
tldr; war on terror a lot like war on drugs - the goal is to generate money for industries.
I don't want to get involved with the ins and outs of conspiracy theories, I am merely showing that the government lies to it's people at the cost of lives and with industries making a lot of money from these lies.
Personally I am unsure in my opinions on what happened, I do however trust science
This is a very informative video which uses the scientific approach and makes up for many of the holes in the official reports.
I'm not saying it was the government, I'm not saying it wasn't terrorists, I'm saying that I don't believe the public has been told the whole truth.
Some Middle Eastern dudes decided to blow up the twin towers, when they were actually contracted by the US to make it look like a terrorist attack in order to spread terrorism propaganda. They blew up there own towers, to give themselves and the people a reason to go to invade Iraq. With the hope that they'd find the so called evil doers who blew up there precious towers. The main reason they did it was to get oil. Blah Blah Blah conspiracy theories later, USA #1.
Do you have a shred of proof or you just another one of the dumb saps that buy into insane theories without question? But yeah USA is the evil empire hahaha. Yes that is a fake laugh you jerk.
There are absolutely no holes in any of the official reports. If there are, the government investigated and closed them.
I can't even tell sarcasm sometimes if its about topics like this. Because dumber things have been said seriously.
AE911Truth has been shown multiple times (at least 5 years ago) to be a bunch of ignorant fuckwits not qualified to build a shed, let alone know anything about skyscraper construction. They pad out their signature list with people like "landscape architects" i.e. gardeners.
For once could we have a 9/11 thread that doesn't exhume ancient conspiracy theorist "evidence"? Most of this stuff was debunked 5-6 years ago.
If they did it to invade Iraq, they should've pinned it on Iraq, rather than Osama Bin Laden. That's where the whole conspiracy theory completely falls apart.
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the U.S. gov did somehow stage 9/11 (it did not). Do you know how many countries would love to call the US gov out and cause major uproar back here? Russia is a prime example, if 9/11 was a conspiracy Russia would acquire incriminating intel and expose the US gov.
It would be a major win for Russia, and a blow to US gov's legitimacy.
But I doubt conspiracy theorist ever think logically like this.
Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)
This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.
For a second I thought I was reading the same dozen posts and the answers relating to them from the previous six pages.
Maybe we should actually read the thread.
Quit kidding yourself. I know you want to believe what you've been told, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you've been lied to.
No building ever collapses that way due to fire damage.
Never in history and you will not be able to provide me with an similar incident because I am right. I know because I've already looked. Do you think we want to believe in this shit? We'd really like to believe that our pal the government is always looking out (we really would, i promise we tried) for us but man, the evidence is overwhelming.
Sure will, just as soon as you show me another building that did not collapse after the exact same circumstances occurred. Should be fairly simple since you claim no similar building in history has collapsed in that manner do to fire.
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage resulting in a 20 floor gash from debris.
6) And weakened by fire that was not fought for over 6-7 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
But WTC 7 didn't fall because of fire damage, alone. It fell because a large part of it's unusual structural skeleton was scooped out by large debris, along with propane fueled fire. It probably would've collapsed without the fire, anyway.
It still imploded in on itself.
If you still don't believe me, go to your house or apartment building and take an axe to the load-baring wall and tell me what happens.
A good example would be this wooden stick thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...2eIoVDQ#t=105s
After sustaining enough structural damage, it collapses in on itself, with a slight lean toward the point where it was hit. Similar to the WTC buildings.
If you aren't even going to attempt to debate properly, I'm going to just disregard what you type.
Also, there's this building:
Although only a section collapsed. The building was not of the same proportions or construction as the steel buildings of the WTC. The physics behind it is not the same, but that building did collapse in on itself on its own.
Then there's the fact that it was sitting there in this condition for 7 hours In reality it took 7 hours to collapse. It's only when those two remaining beams finally cave in on the heat and pressure that the building comes down.
Okay, so the three weight load column system in the WTC7 building is already weak and unusual, then is carved out making it even more weak and is heavily on fire for most of the day, then the interior collapses due to it and the shell comes after evident by the fact that the first thing to fall in the video posted was the penthouses.
Oh but that looks unnatural because Fenderson tells us so.
Here's a decent video of it, it was made before the official investigation was concluded so some of the information (like the source of the fires) is incorrect, but the footage is genuine.
By the firefighters' statements the actual collapse took over an hour, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is approximately 59 minutes 54 seconds longer than six seconds.
And why does it seem that absolutely every video having to do with 9/11 is from the 80s-90s, I get that this stuff was recorded 11 years ago, but that video was edited together in 07.
Fenderson give proof that it was a controlled demolition.