DaButt
Tuesday 21st July 2009 8:34pm [Edited]
14,722 posts
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:43 PM BST
for the official explanation to be true the the laws of physics must have taken a day off on September 11th 2001.
I'm pretty sure the laws of physics wouldn't have a problem explaining the collapse of a building that was hit by a projectile weighing several hundred tons, moving at 400 MPH and filled with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. And those same laws of physics apply when thousands (millions?) of tons of debris fall from a height of a thousand feet onto a nearby building which is then allowed to burn uncontrolled for several hours. Roofs collapse under the weight of a couple feet of snow, so why is it so hard to believe that a building would collapse when a skyscraper falls on it? Girders and concrete ain't exactly fluffy little snowflakes.
Have you seen the buildings near the WTC after the collapse in person? I have and the damage to them was extensive. Here's a photo of the Verizon building which stood/stands next to WTC7. It's a miracle it didn't collapse as well.
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 3:10 PM BST
The point being that the US had been prior to 9/11 an increasingly isolationist country in terms of foreign policy. It had got out of the habit of acting independently overseas, due to lack of support for foreign intervention at home. Vietnam was the death blow to broad-based support for US "best intentioned" military intervention, plus the scandals which occurred when it got involved through covert missions involving the CIA and contra-funding. Even NATO-led military intervention was losing support at home.
The military was beginning to look like a massively-overfunded white elephant, with no obvious purpose either as a nation-building machine - standing up for democracy and freedom - nor as a defensive neccesity (who was attacking the US?). Budgets were being reviewed, cuts were to be made (even by Rumsfeld, who was shocked by the mad weapons contracts that existed, which swallowed money with little or no result). The arms industry gravy train was drying-up. The US military's influence was diminishing.
In terms of neocon geo-political agenda and both military and arms industry interests, 9/11 certainly came at just the right time. Before then it would have been very hard to gain support from the average US citizen for an interventionalist foreign policy or for more capital spending on defence.
You don't understand the American people very well. The military is the most highly regarded and trusted element of our government. We willingly pay huge amounts of taxes to support a strong military. And there was plenty of support for foreign intervention pre-9/11. Just look at the first Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti and plenty of operations in the Middle East.
And I can say without reservation that the military, its leaders and its soldiers are the LAST people who would be eager for war.
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 3:33 PM BST
Saudi and the US have excellent political and ideological ties (I'm talking about those in power in Saudi, not any religious or democratic issues), US bases are not going to be lost there.
I may be out of the loop, but I'm pretty sure there are no more than 200 or so American troops in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. began pulling out before the war in Iraq was a month old in early 2003.