Views on 9-11

[FrodeMk3]

Claims made in Wikepedia??

First off I would ask for proof before such claims are made. Ive heard such accusations before. I want proof.

Second the BAATH party was even more anti-colonial then the communists were. Even if the CIA assisted in the overthrow of the Iraqi pro-communist Govt. in 1963 the fact is the BAATH party was deeply entrenched in the Arab world already. These BAATHists had already targeted Iraq for a regime change and Saddam was nothing more at the time then a hired thug.

There are more CIA conspiracy stories on the net then I can read in a lifetime. The CIA is a favorite target of any author with an Arab name.

That's true. The Ba'ath party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party which seems' to consist of two different parts, does counter theological arab governments, and also has an Anti-communist stance. I believe that's why the CIA would have chose the Ba'athists over any secular Arab gov't. I believe that's because of lessons' learned previously in Iran.

[edit] Iran 1953
Main article: Operation Ajax
See also: CIA Activities by Region: Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia#Iran
In 1953, the CIA worked with the United Kingdom to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran lead by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Declassified CIA documents show that Britain was fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry and pressed the U.S. to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.[3] In 1951 the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil fields of the country. Anti-Communism had also risen to a fever pitch in Washington, and officials were worried that Iran might fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presence there. "The aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party."[3] Prime minister Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, claiming massive support for the measure in a plebiscite and accepted the support of the Communist Tudeh party for his government, leading to U.S. fears of a Communist overthrow.[4]

The coup was led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt). With help from British intelligence, the CIA planned, funded and implemented Operation Ajax.[5] The U.K. and U.S. boycott and other political pressures by both governments, together with a massive covert propaganda campaign in the months leading up to the coup created the environment necessary for success. The CIA hoped to plant articles in American newspapers saying that Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi's return to govern Iran resulted from a homegrown revolt against a Communist-leaning government. This attempt to manipulate the U.S. media largely failed, although the CIA successfully used its contacts at the Associated Press to put on the news wire a statement from Tehran about royal decrees that the C.I.A. itself had written.[3] The CIA hired Iranian assets who posed as Communists, harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home to turn the Islamic religious community against the government.[3] See false flag operation.

The coup initially seemed to fail and the Shah (monarch) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled the country. After four days of rioting pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces and the Shah returned. According to the 1906 constitution he was a constitutional monarch who should rule together with the democratically elected parliament, but after the coup he who ruled autocratically, with little concern for democracy.[6][7]

The Shah was one of the most brutal dictators of his era.[8] The Shah's brutal regime included a secret police, the SAVAK, allied and trained by the CIA, which routinely used torture, and is claimed to have destroyed any real possibility of the survival of an Iranian democratic counterforce to the ayatollahs' ensuing clerical tyranny bred by the Shah's blundering, martyring repression.[9] However, partially due to US pressure, he also attempted to modernzie Iran and introduced many social reforms (See the White Revolution).

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a speech on March 17, 2000 before the American-Iranian Council on the relaxation of U.S. sanctions against Iran, finally acknowledged:

"In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Dwight D. Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Bill Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy toward Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light of our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

[lasersailor184]

Before we go any further, I believe we should define "worse". As in...say, the potential for more mayhem; Or rather, an increasing amount of groups/organizations' that would resort to either terrorism or other acts of harm...? Or do we allow for the advance of technology, which has produced weapons of Mass destruction that now allow a small group to do a great deal of damage?

I would contend that we don't really rationalize the past, as much as we more or less anticipate the future. To put it this way, 150 years' ago, about 150 years' ago, the confederates' weren't building a fission device to obliterate New York or D.C. during our Civil War.

And yet 150 years ago, 600,000 americans were about to die.  About 1 out of every 50 americans WAS GOING TO DIE from a war.

[Ack-Ack]

Building 7 was never hit by a plane.. Fires started in the lower section of the building and it collapse seven hours later. I still don't understand that carpet and furniture burning could bring it down.. Also building seven was never investigated with the 911 commission if i understand it correctly.

Do yourself a favor and read my post.  It explains how Building 7 collapsed.

Honestly, anyone that thinks this was a government conspiracy isn't all that intelligent.

ack-ack

[FrodeMk3]

And yet 150 years ago, 600,000 americans were about to die.  About 1 out of every 50 americans WAS GOING TO DIE from a war.

But that wasn't yet known at the time. It is true that those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it. But if you take that same statement, and put it into the context of our military always being prepared to fight the previous war they were in, then you can see the fallacy of that.

There are weapons, and ways, now, in which we can lose many more americans than we did even in the Civil War. To put an example; Even though it happened in Europe, in World war one there were over a million casualties on both sides of the Battle of the Somme alone. At this time, the Technological advances of the combatants was markedly superior to that of our Civil War; Not only Modern bolt-action cartridge firing rifles, but also Machineguns, Barbed-wire, poison gas, Rapid-fire artillery firing High-Explosive and fragmentation shell, Aircraft, Tanks....And all of this was only 50-55 years after our Civil war. WWII was on average per year, more costly in Human life than either WWII or our Civil War combined.

Now, imagine if Jefferson Davis and Lincoln (or whomever would take office after him in this case) were to be able to preserve peace in America, with the Union and Confederacy living side-by-side for 2 or 3 decades' longer than they did, and THEN waging war with each other, with the weapons' of a future time? Yes, in this case, things definetely could, and would have, been "worse".

This can be applied to 9/11, as well. Up until the WTC disaster, the single worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was...Oklahoma City, I believe, the bombing of the federal building. If you take 9/11 and compare the total cost...Human, dollar, economic...9/11 was in a completely whole new tier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've read that 9/11 cost more human lives' than even the Attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Definetely, definetely, worse.

[1pLUs44]

I never understood the conspiracy theorists. Two planes flew into the WTC. We all saw the pictures. They burned and collapsed. It seems people can't even believe their own eyes.

What if it hadn't been filmed? Well then we get the Pentagon and United 93 version. 'There was no plane'. People have even written books saying no plane hit the Pentagon. Even though I can google up actual pictures of aircraft parts in the Pentagon in the time it takes to type the words and there are literally hundreds of unbiased witnesses who saw the airliner.

The 9/11 conspiracies are easily the most stupid and moronic conspiracy theories around. Not only that, they are insulting to the dead and bereaved, not to mention the injured and traumatised.

Yea, but they want to be apart of it in some small, mediocre way.

[WilldCrd]

I watched a goo dshow on the history channel lastnight regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. They debunked all the conspiracies in a scientific un-biased way.
One of the statements that a structural engineer made was: "ppl say the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, that skyscrapers dont fall that way.....um well how do they fall then? nobody has ever seen skyscrapers on this scale fall before. Actually THAT is how they fall, the science proves this"

Like I said before I like a GOOD conspiracy. The whole 9/11 controlled demolition thing is giving real conspiracy theorists a bad name 

[CAP1]

I watched a goo dshow on the history channel lastnight regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. They debunked all the conspiracies in a scientific un-biased way.
One of the statements that a structural engineer made was: "ppl say the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, that skyscrapers dont fall that way.....um well how do they fall then? nobody has ever seen skyscrapers on this scale fall before. Actually THAT is how they fall, the science proves this"

Like I said before I like a GOOD conspiracy. The whole 9/11 controlled demolition thing is giving real conspiracy theorists a bad name 

i tried to stay awake for it. a commercial came on, and next i knew, my alarm was going off this morning.

but......science says that these hydroxy things cannot work, although they have been proven to work in reality......just sayin.

[CAP1]

I watched a goo dshow on the history channel lastnight regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. They debunked all the conspiracies in a scientific un-biased way.
One of the statements that a structural engineer made was: "ppl say the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, that skyscrapers dont fall that way.....um well how do they fall then? nobody has ever seen skyscrapers on this scale fall before. Actually THAT is how they fall, the science proves this"

Like I said before I like a GOOD conspiracy. The whole 9/11 controlled demolition thing is giving real conspiracy theorists a bad name 

btw........
i'd like to think there was no govt involvement.........,

[lasersailor184]

But that wasn't yet known at the time. It is true that those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it. But if you take that same statement, and put it into the context of our military always being prepared to fight the previous war they were in, then you can see the fallacy of that.

There are weapons, and ways, now, in which we can lose many more americans than we did even in the Civil War. To put an example; Even though it happened in Europe, in World war one there were over a million casualties on both sides of the Battle of the Somme alone. At this time, the Technological advances of the combatants was markedly superior to that of our Civil War; Not only Modern bolt-action cartridge firing rifles, but also Machineguns, Barbed-wire, poison gas, Rapid-fire artillery firing High-Explosive and fragmentation shell, Aircraft, Tanks....And all of this was only 50-55 years after our Civil war. WWII was on average per year, more costly in Human life than either WWII or our Civil War combined.

Now, imagine if Jefferson Davis and Lincoln (or whomever would take office after him in this case) were to be able to preserve peace in America, with the Union and Confederacy living side-by-side for 2 or 3 decades' longer than they did, and THEN waging war with each other, with the weapons' of a future time? Yes, in this case, things definetely could, and would have, been "worse".

This can be applied to 9/11, as well. Up until the WTC disaster, the single worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was...Oklahoma City, I believe, the bombing of the federal building. If you take 9/11 and compare the total cost...Human, dollar, economic...9/11 was in a completely whole new tier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've read that 9/11 cost more human lives' than even the Attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Definetely, definetely, worse.

What was the ratio of deaths during WW1 to how many people were alive?


The civil war wasn't waged with the crude muskets of the middle ages.  It put the most accurate rifles yet in the hands of some of the world's best sharp shooters.  Not to mention the advances in canonry. 

1 out of every 50 americans died in the Civil war.  Roughly 1 out of every 333 americans died in world war 2.  Roughly 1 out of every 1000 americans died in world war 1.  Americans proportionally died at a rate of 6x more in world war 2, 20x more than in world war 1.

All in all the entire word died at a rate of 1 out of every 99 people for world war 1.  All in all the entire world died at a rate of 1 out of every 78 people for world war 2.


The worst you can conjure still doesn't measure up to what we did during the civil war.  The might of the bomb, artillery shell and machine gun still wasn't as bad as the muzzle loading rifles of 1860.

[FrodeMk3]

What was the ratio of deaths during WW1 to how many people were alive?


The civil war wasn't waged with the crude muskets of the middle ages.  It put the most accurate rifles yet in the hands of some of the world's best sharp shooters.  Not to mention the advances in canonry. 

1 out of every 50 americans died in the Civil war.  Roughly 1 out of every 333 americans died in world war 2.  Roughly 1 out of every 1000 americans died in world war 1.  Americans proportionally died at a rate of 6x more in world war 2, 20x more than in world war 1.

All in all the entire word died at a rate of 1 out of every 99 people for world war 1.  All in all the entire world died at a rate of 1 out of every 78 people for world war 2.


The worst you can conjure still doesn't measure up to what we did during the civil war.  The might of the bomb, artillery shell and machine gun still wasn't as bad as the muzzle loading rifles of 1860.

If confined to simply American casualties, on a proportional basis, than yes, the Civil war was worse...For the U.S. alone. However, It was easier for the U.S. to recover from the Civil War, due to the fact that unlike today, the Human losses didn't have as high a proportion of skilled/educated workers' that had to be replaced...this country was still on a mainly agricultural basis, still on the upturn of the industrial revolution. It did take time to rebuild, but we were able to rebuild ourselves, without huge investments of foreign aid, in a relatively short time. Compared to the later World wars, and taking in the total Human, Economic, and political cost...and leaving out the per-person statistics, things' got a lot worse later on. If you look simply at totals of Human life lost, then the estimated total of 72 million deaths' worldwide as a cause of the Second World War won't be touched until a full-out Nuclear Exchange between superpowers.

[Twister2]

Great post ack ack. I applaud you taking the time to post the facts based on research. But based on some of the posts I read there will be no convincing the ingnorant no matter how many scientific facts you give. If someone is dumb enough to believe it was explosives then they are clearly not educated enough to understand basic principles of building constrction and how buildings react under heavy fire conditions and structure damage. It's kind of a catch 22.

[moot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7607473.stm

[cpxxx]

That BBC report is very interesting. The irony of it is that the destruction of the twin towers may indeed help to further develop fusion technology. Thus undermining the importance of oil and the Middle East. Karma?