RE: I would guess that the Pentagon would be deemed as just military and an attack on America alone. I expected that answer - stock standard response of the conspiracy theorists. Errr...........so why attack the Pentagon as well then.....no point doing that if you've already done the WTC! You see....it doesn't add up!
more impact an attack on the pentagon would be considered less dramatic than on a civilian target. makes sense. what had more impact - manchester city centre bombing or the numerous attacks on UK military bases?
more impact an attack on the pentagon would be considered less dramatic than on a civilian target. makes sense. what had more impact - manchester city centre bombing or the numerous attacks on UK military bases?
So the attack on Manchester city centre wasn't terrorists then? Just an attack by the British security services? My point being that if the US wanted public opinion to support going after a group of terrorists or, indeed, invading Iraq, they would get it just by the Pentagon being attacked. I agree it had more impact, hence why Al Qaeda targetted both - 1. To see they could attack the heart of US commercial interests and a well known symbol. 2. To show they could attack the heart of US military power. We could go around in circles here - the whole conspiracy theories are the work of nothing more than crackpots, they aren't worth a moment of my time and I treat them with the disdain and contempt that they deserve - they are an insult to the people of the US and an insult to those who died.
To get the American public interested. It makes sense to me , you need to get the American public onside so attack the Pentagon , then to get the "world" involved you bring the WTC down.</p>
whoa! i didn't say that. you asked why attack the WTC and not the penatgon. The IRA analogies were there to show that civilian targets have more impact than military
With the US Senate now producing a report that there was in fact no link at all between Saddam and Al Qaeda , thus rendering the initial premise on which the invasion of Iraq took place as a load of tosh.</p> To me its quite conceivable that a Govt could do something in order to sway public opinion to do something it wanted to do.</p>
Although I believe that it's easy to hide a few missiles in a country the size of Iraq...... ....I wouldn't have bothered with all that. I'd have asked the public, given the benefit of hindsight, at what point they'd have taken action against Adolf Hitler.</p>
Nope , just giving an alternative viewpoint, it seems perfectly plausible to me that Governements could train people with an agenda to do something. I suspect that the acts usualyy take place in a foreign country , but is it so inconceivable that a Govt would do something in its own country?</p>
Just giving an alternative reason. I usually go with official lines on things , e.g the Diana crash , however in this instance whilst I may be wide of the mark with what I believe that it is perfectly plausible for the US security forces to stage the 9/11 attacks.</p> Do you think its impossible for Govt agencies to do anything like this?</p>
I am at a loss why we didnt just pile straight through. I cant remember the reason why we didnt go in. </p> Do you know why we didnt?</p>
I have to admit I wouldnt have taken yourself as someone who couldnt see it being possible. You have surprised me there.
Ok, I'll pretend i don't think you're on a wind-up. For a start I don't think a decision like that would be made at the level of the security forces, it would have to be made at government level because they're the ones who would be making the subsequent decision to invade Iraq.</p> I don't think, even if anyone in the US government was crazy enough to come up with it they'd dare set it up. It's not like arranging a sniper on a grassy knoll, there would be far too many people involved, far too many ways for the truth to out and imagine if that happened.</p>
I can't even remember where my dining room is....... .....my guess is his remaining in power had something to do with money/oil.