Well I do not know that it could be called a sneak attack in the sense that there was a reason for it.

As for the 2nd part of your reply....Again I do not condone attacking countries because they are worrisome.

The Japanese had "reasons" too. However, IMO they were both just manufactured excuses for doing something evil that had little to do with the justifications that they gave.

Iraq was not attacked because they were "worrisome", they were attacked because they refused to allow nuclear weapons to do their job. Many people seem to conveniently forget that if they had done so, they never would have been invaded.

You can't honestly believe that, can you UG? If Hussein had allowed the weapons inspectors, the inspectors would have found nothing, and then he would have been accused of "hiding the weapons". And the West would have just made his life miserable until he had enough, all the while gathering more intelligence for the inevitable invasion.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

Really I'm shocked some people believe the falsehoods that come out Washington. These are the same people that gave us the fabricated story of babies being torn from incubators by Hussein and the Jessica Lynch fairytale. Nothing they say is credible. How can you tell when the US government is lying? They are breathing.

As I said, "Iraq was worrisome because of their threats and Nuclear and Chemical Weapons programs", but they were attacked because they did not allow UN nuclear weapons inspectors to do their job and it was well known that they had both a nuclear and Chemical Weapons programs in the recent past and had actually used chemical weapons on their own people.

But they did allow the inspectors...note the dates of when the inspections were concluded...This report is from Oct 7th 2004 the inspections had been going on for 15 months

The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group

& yes reports also show that a decade earlier he had somethings but? A decade earlier??

Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.

Overall it was a weak argument to give the heave ho to yet another countries leader that would not play ball or jump when told to do so.

Back to the original reason for it just being another (not the only mind you )possible reason for blowback/ 9-11

Well I do not know that it could be called a sneak attack in the sense that there was a reason for it.

As for the 2nd part of your reply....Again I do not condone attacking countries because they are worrisome.

The Japanese had "reasons" too. However, IMO they were both just manufactured excuses for doing something evil that had little to do with the justifications that they gave.

Iraq was not attacked because they were "worrisome", they were attacked because they refused to allow nuclear weapons to do their job. Many people seem to conveniently forget that if they had done so, they never would have been invaded.

You can't honestly believe that, can you UG?

Yes I can. If he had allowed the weapons inspectors to finish the job, there would have been no justification for the attack.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

As I said, "Iraq was worrisome because of their threats and Nuclear and Chemical Weapons programs", but they were attacked because they did not allow UN nuclear weapons inspectors to do their job and it was well known that they had both a nuclear and Chemical Weapons programs in the recent past and had actually used chemical weapons on their own people.

But they did allow the inspectors...note the dates of when the inspections were concluded...This report is from Oct 7th 2004 the inspections had been going on for 15 months

Those of us who were following the issue at the time remember that Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the weapon inspectors. In the months leading up to the war, he made a habit of denying the inspectors access to anything then the Wednesday before the inspectors' report to the UN on Friday Saddam would suddenly "find" some small quantity of weapons. So the inspector would report that Saddam had been difficult BUT he was cooperatiing. After the report he would deny access again until just before the next report date.

The reason Saddam was hiding his non-existent WMDs was that he didn't want his enemies both domestic and foreign to know he didn't have them. His own Republican Guard units around Baghdad thought the unit next to them had them. Every intelligence agency in the world "knew" he had them. He played a dangerous game and lost. He lost his life, his sons' lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives, thousands of foreign insurgents' lives and 5000+ American lives. All because he was a dangerous meglamaniac. Sadly, from a world foreign relations point of view, assassinating him would have been worse.

If I recall correctly, Saddam had said he was more afraid of what Iran would do if than what the US/UN would do. He may have miscalculated...then again, maybe not.

As I said, "Iraq was worrisome because of their threats and Nuclear and Chemical Weapons programs", but they were attacked because they did not allow UN nuclear weapons inspectors to do their job and it was well known that they had both a nuclear and Chemical Weapons programs in the recent past and had actually used chemical weapons on their own people.

But they did allow the inspectors...note the dates of when the inspections were concluded...This report is from Oct 7th 2004 the inspections had been going on for 15 months

Those of us who were following the issue at the time remember that Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the weapon inspectors. In the months leading up to the war, he made a habit of denying the inspectors access to anything then the Wednesday before the inspectors' report to the UN on Friday Saddam would suddenly "find" some small quantity of weapons. So the inspector would report that Saddam had been difficult BUT he was cooperatiing. After the report he would deny access again until just before the next report date.

That's the way I remember it.

I can't comment on his motives behind it, but he definitely wasn't behind very cooperative.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

I could, but you wouldn't listen anyway. I could call your attention to the thousands of innocent people murdered by Cheney and Co. on 911, and the tens of thousands of people in the Middle East since then, but that would just get us into a discussion with no resolution. What I said is not a misinformed statement. You simply don't choose to believe the evidence, and I have long since realized that there is no way to convince anyone who doesn't want to see the truth.

But I agree with you that Sadaam was worse...marginally.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

I could, but you wouldn't listen anyway. I could call your attention to the thousands of innocent people murdered by Cheney and Co. on 911, and the tens of thousands of people in the Middle East since then, but that would just get us into a discussion with no resolution. What I said is not a misinformed statement. You simply don't choose to believe the evidence, and I have long since realized that there is no way to convince anyone who doesn't want to see the truth.

But I agree with you that Sadaam was worse...marginally.

The mere fact that you make such anti-American gov't posts without any fear whatsover that someone from the CIA or FBI will knock on your door, rape your wife and daughters in front of you before killing them and taking you off to prison to be properly tortured is proof enough that the US isn't nearly as bad as Saddam.

If I recall correctly, Saddam had said he was more afraid of what Iran would do if than what the US/UN would do. He may have miscalculated...then again, maybe not.

In the end it turned out he should have been more afraid of the US/UK. Iran probably would have only taken territory and not the entire country and Saddam would have stayed in power. He over-estimated how much pull the French & Germans would have after paying them off in the Oil for Food scandal.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

I could, but you wouldn't listen anyway. I could call your attention to the thousands of innocent people murdered by Cheney and Co. on 911, and the tens of thousands of people in the Middle East since then, but that would just get us into a discussion with no resolution. What I said is not a misinformed statement. You simply don't choose to believe the evidence, and I have long since realized that there is no way to convince anyone who doesn't want to see the truth.

But I agree with you that Sadaam was worse...marginally.

Do you honestly believe that 9/11 was a plot of "Cheney and Co."?

If so and you can prove it, please inform the world. I am certain there are plenty of Bush/Cheney haters that would love to string both of them up like Mussolini.

If you can't prove it, then why throw it out in the first place?

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

you wouldn't listen anyway.

Pot, kettle, black.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

I could, but you wouldn't listen anyway. I could call your attention to the thousands of innocent people murdered by Cheney and Co. on 911, and the tens of thousands of people in the Middle East since then, but that would just get us into a discussion with no resolution. What I said is not a misinformed statement. You simply don't choose to believe the evidence, and I have long since realized that there is no way to convince anyone who doesn't want to see the truth.

But I agree with you that Sadaam was worse...marginally.

Do you honestly believe that 9/11 was a plot of "Cheney and Co."?

If so and you can prove it, please inform the world. I am certain there are plenty of Bush/Cheney haters that would love to string both of them up like Mussolini.

If you can't prove it, then why throw it out in the first place?

If you are unbiased and suspend your dogmatic belief in what the US government and the media has told you, it is easy to prove that the towers were destroyed through controlled demolition. There is so much physical evidence in the debris that was recovered that the conclusion is inescapable. I didn't start out believing what I do today. I was convinced by looking at the data and accepting what it told me. I understand enough about physics and science that I can come to my own conclusions.

If you can watch the evidence presented in this documentary and still believe in the official report then you are intentionally trying to ignore reality.

Now, once you accept that the official story is not true, and you listen to the 911 commission who explained that their investigations were interfered with, and you realize how quickly the 911 crime scene was cleared while completely violating every federal regulation on building and aircraft accidents, you start to realize that someone at a very high level acted to make this happen...obviously because they didn't want an honest investigation finding the true evidence of what happened. That means they were either involved themselves or knew the person or persons who were involved and didn't want that information to be uncovered. You don't try and cover up a crime unless you are trying to hide something. Any rookie policeman knows that.

In this case they are trying to hide the unmistakable conclusion of controlled demolition. And that begs the question of who had access to the buildings in order to wire them. And then you have to start doing some detective work and look where the trails lead. This requires you to look at other things like who prevented the military from intercepting the hijacked planes, who scheduled a supposedly mock drill at the same time the real act was occurring, etc.. Michael Rupert in Crossing the Rubicon makes a very strong case that all the roads lead back to Cheney.

One thing is physically undeniable, controlled demolition brought down the towers. It is also undeniable that the US government has acted in a way to cover up this information. You have to ask yourself why? Until you are ready to believe that and follow the crime scene wherever it leads, you will never be able to view the reality of the information in any honest fashion.

I'm not saying Hussein was a good guy. Far from it. He was an evil dictator. It's just that the US government is not significantly better on that score. They are just more hypocritical by pretending they are honorable when they are in fact barely better than the tyrants they prop up.

That is an incredibly misinformed statement. Could you perhaps give some specific examples? I can think of many ways how Saddam was much worse but I'm more curious how you think they were the same.

you wouldn't listen anyway.

Pot, kettle, black.

I listen to physical evidence. Show me the physics and I will listen to anything. I am not religious, and I don't accept beliefs as a reason to accept one theory vs. another. So it is not the pot calling the kettle black as you postulate. It is that I have actually looked at the evidence in an unbiased fashion. If you can provide me actual data that disproves the reality of controlled demolition, I will most certainly listen to you. But it has to be physical evidence, not conjecture or speculation.

listen to physical evidence. Show me the physics and I will listen to anything. I am not religious, and I don't accept beliefs as a reason to accept one theory vs. another. So it is not the pot calling the kettle black as you postulate. It is that I have actually looked at the evidence in an unbiased fashion. If you can provide me actual data that disproves the reality of controlled demolition, I will most certainly listen to you. But it has to be physical evidence, not conjecture or speculation.

Greg, this should be in the thread about conspiracy theories.

That is exactly where that post belongs.

Your Favourite Conspiracy Theory (You Don't Have To Necessarily Believe It).

That is exactly where that post belongs.

Your Favourite Conspiracy Theory (You Don't Have To Necessarily Believe It).

As long as you are equally willing to place there the conspiracy theory that 19 men with boxcutters suspended the laws of physics and brought down the twin towers, I will happily accept that. In any case, this argument has been going for a decade. It will not be decided on this forum.

The original question was whether or not the US overreacted, and my answer remains as a definitive "yes, and it was an intentional over reaction."

So I am expected to believe that my eyes were watching those planes crash into the two towers to start this incredible event and really didn't see what they saw?

After that happened somebody rushed up to the 80th (or so) floor, planted explosives in the correct places to make the building collapse upon itself rather than fall over, went back downstairs and then set off the explosives. And they did it to two buildings...plus Tower 7 later in the day.

I am further expected to believe Bush and Cheney somehow managed to hatch this plot and pull it off in less than two hours, even though they were divided by half the country?

Yep...you got me there!

Edited to make some sense of part of it and to add this link:

http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml

[As long as you are equally willing to place there the conspiracy theory that 19 men

As al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. It is no conspiracy theory.

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the hijackers[1] and connected them to al-Qaeda,[2] a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.[3][4][5]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsib_for_the_September_11_attacks

So I am expected to believe that my eyes were watching those planes crash into the two towers to start this incredible event and really didn't see what they saw?

After that happened somebody rushed up to the 80th (or so) floor, planted explosives in the correct places to make the building collapse upon itself rather than fall over, went back downstairs and then set off the explosives. And they did it to two buildings...plus Tower 7 later in the day.

I am further expected to believe Bush and Cheney somehow managed to hatch this plot and pull it off in less than two hours, even though they were divided by half the country?

Yep...you got me there!

Edited to make some sense of part of it.

Way to create a straw man argument and then destroy it. When you can't fight the physics, try and fight something you can. A normal psychological reaction, but it hardly helps to resolve the issue. Nobody said the planes didn't hit, and nobody said anything had to be done in 2 hours.

In any case, as I said above, we won't solve this crime on this forum. A new, independent investigation by the UN including experts from China and Russia might have a chance at getting to the truth of the matter, but we never will.

So I am expected to believe that my eyes were watching those planes crash into the two towers to start this incredible event and really didn't see what they saw?

After that happened somebody rushed up to the 80th (or so) floor, planted explosives in the correct places to make the building collapse upon itself rather than fall over, went back downstairs and then set off the explosives. And they did it to two buildings...plus Tower 7 later in the day.

I am further expected to believe Bush and Cheney somehow managed to hatch this plot and pull it off in less than two hours, even though they were divided by half the country?

Yep...you got me there!

Edited to make some sense of part of it.

Way to create a straw man argument and then destroy it. When you can't fight the physics, try and fight something you can. A normal psychological reaction, but it hardly helps to resolve the issue. Nobody said the planes didn't hit, and nobody said anything had to be done in 2 hours.

In any case, as I said above, we won't solve this crime on this forum. A new, independent investigation by the UN including experts from China and Russia might have a chance at getting to the truth of the matter, but we never will.

I edited in a link in my previous post with some engineering thoughts on how the buildings collapsed.

Didn't know you would post so quickly.

Sorry about that

[As long as you are equally willing to place there the conspiracy theory that 19 men

As al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. It is no conspiracy theory.

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the hijackers[1] and connected them to al-Qaeda,[2] a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.[3][4][5]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsib_for_the_September_11_attacks

It included multiple people colluding to create an outcome, and is therefore by definition a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, it is a bad one because it is physically implausible. It ranks right up there with the moon landings were faked. Whether the conspirators claimed credit for it or did not (and more importantly why someone would claim credit for it or not) is not really relevant.

When you can't fight the physics, try and fight something you can.

Give me a break.

http://www.debunking911.com/

So I am expected to believe that my eyes were watching those planes crash into the two towers to start this incredible event and really didn't see what they saw?

After that happened somebody rushed up to the 80th (or so) floor, planted explosives in the correct places to make the building collapse upon itself rather than fall over, went back downstairs and then set off the explosives. And they did it to two buildings...plus Tower 7 later in the day.

I am further expected to believe Bush and Cheney somehow managed to hatch this plot and pull it off in less than two hours, even though they were divided by half the country?

Yep...you got me there!

Edited to make some sense of part of it.

Way to create a straw man argument and then destroy it. When you can't fight the physics, try and fight something you can. A normal psychological reaction, but it hardly helps to resolve the issue. Nobody said the planes didn't hit, and nobody said anything had to be done in 2 hours.

In any case, as I said above, we won't solve this crime on this forum. A new, independent investigation by the UN including experts from China and Russia might have a chance at getting to the truth of the matter, but we never will.

I edited in a link in my previous post with some engineering thoughts on how the buildings collapsed.

Didn't know you would post so quickly.

Sorry about that

Without the finite element analysis used to make the model on the website you quote, it is meaningless.

The 911 commission also had a finite element analysis model in their report. When anyone has tried to request it under the Freedom of Information Act in order to verify it, the response from the government has been that it is "classified".

Right. The most important event in the last decade. The only time in history when a steel framed building has completely collapsed due to nothing more than fire, and the government thinks it is not in the interest of the public to provide the information. All you people who live in high rise condos or work in office towers should be scared. Those same buildings were designed using the old physics where this was impossible.

Aren't you afraid a fire is going to collapse your building? I know I would be if I accepted the official explanation.

Write the website and get the finite element analysis model that shows exactly how the collapse occurred. When you have it, then it can be analyzed. If it support the official story and explains the iron drops in the debris, then I will believe it. But I need physics. Not religion.

Edit:

I will point out one thing that is completely wrong with the website you stated at first glance:

The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum

This is, of course, not only wrong, but badly wrong. As energy is used to pulverize and crush the steel and concrete, the collapse would lose momentum, not gain it. This is high school physics, not even university level. The force of the steel and concrete below it is stronger than the gravitational force pulling the mass down. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be a building.

When you can't fight the physics, try and fight something you can.

Give me a break.

http://www.debunking911.com/

I repeat again. When you can't fight the physics. Try and fight something you can.

When you can't fight the physics, try and fight something you can.

Give me a break.

http://www.debunking911.com/

I repeat again. When you can't fight the physics. Try and fight something you can.

First of all, the physics prove you wrong, not right. But for the sake of argument, here's something to "fight"...How about finding someone silly enough to believe that Bush/Cheney could flawlessly pull of the largest scam in the history of the world which would need to involve hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators and after ten years not a single person has talked or a single bit of information has been leaked? Really?

All this argument about how the towers actually collapsed is supremely irrelevant. We know two planes crashed into them; we know they started a fire; we know 3000 people or so died in them; we know the towers collapsed.

That's what we have to react or over-react, or under-react, to, not the mechanics of how the towers collapsed one way rather than another.

Put a case (which I don't believe), that the towers would have collapsed like dominoes, taking other buildings and more lives with them, if they hadn't been blown up, it doesn't change one iota in the original question.

Perhaps this forum should be called 'Off on a tangent' instead of 'Outside the box'.

Perhaps this forum should be called 'Off on a tangent' instead of 'Outside the box'.

Ain't that the truth.

Is this a discussion on the practticalities of skyscraper demolition, the correct response to massive terrorist acts, or whether the USA was a victim of appalling internal corrupt mischief?

If we assume that

a) the attack on the Twin Towers was a terrorist act by enemies of the state

the collapse of the towers was caused by that attack

c) the US goverrnmanet believed that the attack was instigated by (and to b ehonest, the American war, wherever it may be, is such a 'given' that I can'r remember whether 9'11 came from Iraq or Afghanistan - round it up, call it ten shillings, say it came from both,,..

Was their response unjustified? Was their response to the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 unjustified?

SC

Is this a discussion on the practticalities of skyscraper demolition, the correct response to massive terrorist acts, or whether the USA was a victim of appalling internal corrupt mischief?

If we assume that

a) the attack on the Twin Towers was a terrorist act by enemies of the state

the collapse of the towers was caused by that attack

c) the US goverrnmanet believed that the attack was instigated by (and to b ehonest, the American war, wherever it may be, is such a 'given' that I can'r remember whether 9'11 came from Iraq or Afghanistan - round it up, call it ten shillings, say it came from both,,..

Was their response unjustified? Was their response to the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 unjustified?

SC

The thread is about whether or not the reaction to the attacks on 9/11 was too much. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" or "overreact" when something like 9/11 happens. The more over the top the reaction is, the less likely someone will try the same sh*t. In 1941 Japan wanted to get the USA out of the Pacific and the result of their sneak attack was American bases all across the Pacific and their in homeland in addition to over 1 million Japanese killed. It took 60 years before someone was stupid enough to try that again. Al Qaeda wanted to get the USA out of muslim lands. The result is dozens of bases and hundreds of thousands of military personnel spread from Northern Africa to Paksitan in addition to over 100,000 musilms killed (most by other Muslims as it turns out). I hope it is at least another 60 years before someone again tests the American resolve for "payback". Btw - we aren't alone in that. There are a few other countries out there who also payback in full and then some.

Side note: At least the Lusitania was actually sunk. The whole Gulf of Tonkin deal was just made up.

.