heard a question today about 9/11?

Question

Thought I would get your view of it. Question was brought up at a table of friends playing what if.
What if the C I A new 9/11 was going to happen but did nothing because they needed a reason that would so upset our nation that we would over look obvious logic and allow them to go into Iraq? And why would they need to be in there so badly? Or did they keep silent because they knew 9/11 would bring our country in behind them and they would recieve alot of money? I know some of that is far fetched but I do know that bio containers(empty) with american logos where found over there. So what do you think

Dont think it is true. It was a what if converstation over dinner one night. But then stranger things have been uncovered in our countrys past.

Answer 1

Far-fetched and false. After EVERY national tragedy there is some group claiming that the government knew about it or was behind it for some ulterior purpose.

1. The Bombing of Pearl Harbor
2. The assassination of President Kennedy
3. The attacks on the Turner Joy and the Maddox that led America into the Vietnam conflict
4. The assassination of Malcolm X
5. The assassination of Martin Luther King
6. The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
7. The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan


and on and on and on...


Don't believe everything you hear about the government being behind every bad thing that happens in America.

Answer 2

It's not far fetched, I've heard the same rumours as you have. I'm not preaching this one way or another, but I am making a simple observation. When the jet crashed into the Pentagon, there were no debris that belonged to a jet. In fact, there were no trail debris at all that looked like there was a jet was coming in. Even in the photos released, all you see is an explosion. Also, there are numerous independant engineers that claim the WTC's steel could not have melted from burning jet fuel because it could not reach that temperature. There're also reports that people have heard booms inside both towers BEFORE the two jets crashed into them. Again, I'm not trying to sway one way or another, I'm just stating what I know and read from both sides.

Answer 3

I think it is a poor attempt to try and give an old foolish concept a fresh face.

To what possible end did they do this? Where is all the oil we supposed went there for? Where is all the money they got for this? You mean to tell me that the New York Times can get stories on top secret issues regarding national security but they can't crack this story?!?

And you 'know' the bio containers with American logos where found there? Where is there? How do you know this? Did you see them with your own eyes?

Sounds to me like a bunch of nonsense.

Answer 4

Even presupposing this hypothetical was true and that the CIA refrained from taking every measure to thwart 9/11 so as to have justification to go Iraq, the American people, and the Congress that is supposed to represent them, are still culpable for the injustice of an unwarranted invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Why? The instillation of fear is still no excuse for one to suspend rational and critical judgment, especially when that judgment could result in the loss of life. If people even use a scintilla of discernment that they are endowed with they could easily see that there was no strong connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, and there was no substantial arsenal of WMDs to warrant a preemptive invasion. Even with the commanding presence of Colin Powell and his eloquent exposition on the possible existence of such WMDs, a common person could see holes in his hypothesis.

With that said if the CIA did really behave in this manner, and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it should go without saying that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for treason. In my mind, any action that results in the death of our men under any circumstance other than a truly eminent threat to our nation, should fall under the consequences that the law administers to people who commit treasonous acts.

I also like to use this venue to state that even if the world were falsely led to believe that there were WMDs of significant quantity, that does not warrant a full scale blitz of nation unless that nation can be proven to have the intention to use those weapons against us. After all, many nations, some of which are our adversaries, have the capacity to produce biological and chemical weapons and yet we don’t invade them. Seems like inequitable treatment. That is hardly democratic way of doing things.

Answer 5

Nutty conspiracy theory again. Try this as to why we went into Iraq.

1. We defeated Sadam in the first Gulf War.
2. Since we defeated him, we make the rules of peace.
3. He agreed not to have chemical/biological, etc. weapons.
4. The U.N. passed I believe 19 resolutions and Sadam ignored them.
5. We thus had 1 legitimate reason to take him out.

Forget that he harbored terrorists, admited he had chemical weapons, along with the U.N, many other countries, etc.

Quit the theories and use facts.

Answer 6

Hey dumd*** what if the NY Yankees were really a football and not a baseball team. Sounds ridiculous? well so do you

Answer 7

look what happend at pearl harbour there where so many clues of an attack and still nothing was doen unless we learn from history it is destined to be repeated

Answer 8

Does the term "broken record" mean anything to anybody?

Answer 9

What if you were the one responsible? Since its not true, it doesn't matter. You don't believe its true do you?

Answer 10

agrees with mr. curious