Boilermaker Rick wrote:
9/11 was bad for the country though. I don't think that everyone involved would risk being convicted of treason to make the company that makes the nudie airport scanner more money.
In reality, the best option would have been to let the terrorist attack start, and then have people stop it in mid-air with a bunch of planted air marshalls on those planes. You'd get the same overreaction with minimal casualties and no extreme fallout in the most important city in the country.
dude that's like seeing the first ray rice video and saying "there's no way that ray rice would hit a woman in public that like that! i don't think that he'd risk being convicted of domestic abuse and screw up a short-shelf-life career where he can make millions of dollars" --- or better yet it's like saying "there's no way that roger goodell would cover up the second ray rice video because there's no way that he'd risk losing a $40mil/year job like that" --- sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
and i'm not saying that anyone necessarily did anything treasonous to either create 9/11 or make sure 9/11 happened, i'm just saying that *IF* such a thing happened given what we've seen unfold in the last 13 years since then, at the very least there's a wholly-convenient $$$$PROFIT$$$$/margin reason behind it all.
*IF* the potentially-treasonous people did what others claim they did, it's not because they hate america so much they wanna see its citizens stripped of their liberties to the point where they're treated like prisoners every time they gotta go through the equivalent of airport security to do anything in public. and it's prolly not because some patriot out there believed that america's defenses had gone soft/lax and therefore they needed a new crisis to "wake them up" and "invest the $$$ needed to ensure america's security as THE premier first world nation going forward" ---- it would almost surely be about making giant gobs of $$$$
i mean hey remember larry silverstein? he took out some giant insurance policy that specifically covered terrorism on the WTC buildings, and while yes i know you're likely to say that it was a cromulent thing to do because "look at what happened.... was he wrong?" proponents of conspiracy theory arguing with you can claim that he bought the buildings for relatively cheap, took our said insurance policy within a year of the attacks, and hey whaddya know some horrible shit happened and the only consolation for "lucky larry" is that he made a huge profit off of the whole process because it's funny how things work out.
again, i leave it to the individual to potentially connect dots that might or might not exist and believe what they wanna believe regarding the horrors of 9/11, but alls i've been saying from the get go is that when you say "nah, even a bunch of $$$$ (trivialized to be a "few bucks off of nudie scanners") isn't reason enough to risk out-n-out TREASON and the de-facto (if not literal) end of their lives" you're totally discounting the drive of people to make a bunch of $$$$, which is usually at the very least a nice byproduct of the furthering of the digiquitous society we live in.
it's kind of like when you talk about the digiquitous age of "big brother" that we live in, and when you say that computerphones (read: smartphones) are capable of completely eradicating any delusion of "privacy" you have in the name of "total informational awareness", good straightlaced citizens like yourself can claim "there's no way the CIA/FBI/NSA gives a flying fuck about you at all, so all of that privacy stuff is a bunch of bullshit because nobody's ever going to potentially use the technology to find out everything about you unless you go down a dark terrorist path where they SHOULD be using the technology to find everything about you" --- but in reality, most of the everyday end-usage of such "big brother" tech is going to be to turn a profit with all of the datamined information about you. go figure that your computerphone (which is being touted as a payment method more and more in "the real world") might have a bunch of pertinent information about your tendencies as a consumer (preferred customer cards were only the tip of the iceberg!) and therefore when, say, you happen to register as being a few blocks away from a walgreens your phone might pop up and say HEY IT'S YOUR FRIENDLY WALGREENS APP HERE TO SAY THAT WE'VE GOT A SPECIAL DIGITAL COUPON FOR YOU TO USE ON THOSE $9 HEALTH MILKSHAKES YOU BUY A LOT OF!" well before you ever get the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc showing up to commandeer your phone for important national security stuff. yeah the technology theoretically exists for that all-pervasive illusion of "security" that is the raison d'etre for the militarization of the authorities in our digiquitous society, but most likely its everyday practical use is going to be to make a quick buck at the expense of your "privacy."
same thing here. while you like to think that any conspiracy would have some grand endgame that warrants such drastic/unfathomable measures in the wake of "treason", more often than not the reason for stupid humans being stupid is that they wanna make a quick buck off of something, with the highbrow/high-concept stuff being reserved for "terrorists" and/or whatever else that threatens the very fabric of our society as a whole.
so yeah dude, i implore you to never underestimate the fundamentally human/contemporary desire to make a quick buck or 2.... billion in the wake of potential conspiracy/treason/etc. you merely stated that there was no REASON for anyone for anyone to go conspire and well, i'm just saying that if people were indeed going to risk treason to conspire to do/allow something like this, odds are that they did it with an eye to make a whole bunch of $$$ in the end. and i think there's plenty of room for you to allow for that to be a motivation for people to conspire to do/allow something dastardly like 9/11, even tho for the umpteenth time i am once again saying that it is very likely that the official story is what happened here. we're dealing with a hypothetical motivation for a hypothetical-at-best situation, and hey let's say that there was some sort/level of conspiracy with 9/11..... what reason stands above all the others as a "proper" reason to conspire in the first place other than making a whole bunch of $$$$?
TL;DR = comeon brick, i know that you were put on this earth to argue/debate with people, but in the remote chance that there was a 9/11 conspiracy you've gotta allow for there to be the possibility that the people involved with said unlikely-conspiracy wanted to make a bunch of $$$ as opposed to "NUH UH! THAT'D BE TREASON AND THEY'D NEVER DO THAT!"cuz AGAIN this is only if we assume that there is a conspiracy, and what better reason to sell out your own damn country and to "make things worse" for everyone as a whole is there than "hey i'll be fucking rich/er"
and wow i feel like a goddamned fool for taking your bait and going holy-mother-of-TL;DR on this topic. c'est la fucking vie.
_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
Les Grobstein's huge hog is proof that God has a sense of humor, isn't it?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
You realize that I said this earlier right? Difference is a group (not a power country) was able to successfully attack us in multiple locations despite us having prior knowledge of these planned attacks. Like I said earlier at best we were extremely incompetent. I'm not willing to dismiss other ideas because that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.
