What makes you think this? My aunt DIED in the crash. So by what way, shape, or form does this even come CLOSE to an inside job? What good does that do? This is extremely offensive to just about everyone. Do you think our government just wanders about saying "Let's start a war with this country." No. It's American payback as my best friend says who was in the war "We went there to show them who the hell they were messing with and show them payback. We are not going to let some terrorists mess with mother America."
What makes me think this is a majority of the wars American has been in in the past 150 years has been over lies. Usually an event is done before a war is started to sway the public's opinion to support the war. Examples of us lying to go to war are War with Spain in 1898 with the blowing up of the USS Maine, World World One with the sinking of the Lusitania, Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Iraq with Al Qaeda and WMDs. Many people including myself also think that we let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into World War Two. Our country does say lets start a war with other countries because there is money to be made at war. Many people profit from war including corporations which pretty much run America. We just found a vein of lithium in Afghanistan worth a trillion dollars too. The government clearly played a part in 9/11 to get us to go to war in Afghanistan because of money. Also there are so many things that happened during, before, and after 9/11 that make no sense.
Do you guys ACTUALLY believe this? I don't even know what to say... It's so... Stupid. Pearl Harbor an excuse to get into world war 2? I just, can't believe how superstitious you are. I obviously can't talk any sense into you because you are so hell bent on tragestys being lies. If it makes you feel better. They is a group out there that helps people like you. It's called an... Hmmm... Oh yea! Asylum.
All those lies I mentioned to get into wars were factual. Robert McNamara who was the Secretary of Defense when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred admitted that the event was a lie and was done to justify going to war. It is confirmed that the government and/or the media lied about the blowing up of the USS Maine to get us into war with Spain and lied about the sinking of the Lusitania to get us into World War One. The government also told us there were WMDs in Iraq and Al Qaeda was associated with Iraq. This was another confirmed lie. So you cannot argue that the U.S. has gone to war on multiple occasions over lie. The government is willing to kill their own people to go to war too. A plan called operation northwoods was proposed to JFK in 1962 by the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff. This plan was to carry out acts of terrorism on US citizens by the government and make it look like Cuba did it to justify a war with Cuba. JFK, however, rejected this plan. So do not call me crazy for saying the U.S would kill its own people and lie to go to war because operation northwoods proves this wrong. Again this is a fact you cannot dispute. Another fact: the US government received 40 warnings that Bin Laden wanted to fly plains into buildings in New York in 2001 before 9/11 even happened. Another fact: Passports of the terrorists which were on the planes that flew into the WTC were found, but the black boxes of only one of the four planes that crashed that day was in good enough shape for us to supposedly listen too. Black boxes are suppose to withstand the most intense conditions but a passport survived when a majority of the black boxes didn't. That sounds messed up to me Another fact: a skyscraper has never fallen due to fire except with the WTC. According to the 9/11 report the buildings fell because of fire. Jet Fuel burning or a normal fire cannot melt steel and cannot bring a skyscraper down. To take it a step further WTC 7 fell solely because of fire. There are many instances in history where buildings have burned out but their structure remains in tact. My proposal is controlled demolition was used. The way the buildings fell was just liked a building would if it was blown up by controlled demolition. Another Fact: building 7 fell at the rate of gravity according to the 9/11 commission report. According to Jesse Ventura who was part of the navy seals and was part of the underwater demolition team in the navy said this goes against the laws of physics. When the building fell there had to be some resistance there. There is so much more to it by I will leave it at that. If you look into 9/11 and discover the information the government and mainstream media don't want you to see, it becomes very obvious this was a conspiracy.
Reasons for voting decision: Your aunt dying is not a point against US complicity, LOL.
The US government DOES go around starting wars, that's their hallmark. They've planned for decades to systematically pick apart and take over the middle east, most likely due to being a puppet of Israeli shadow government.
Pro knows his history, and the cognitive dissonance so evident in con inability to even face the facts of his government's duplicity is where the term "sheeple" comes from. The best case of it I've every seen demonstrated.
With simple objective analysis of all that happened that day, and Pro's arguments on top, no quality thinker, unobstructed by emotional pain and cognitive dissonance, could deny there is a case for US national complicity, in some way, at some level (including -likely- those not officially recognized) in the attack on 9/11.
Reasons for voting decision: Con resorted to Ad Hominem attacks and forfeited the final round, costing them conduct points. Pro did provide convincing arguments by citing operations in the past designed to do what 9/11 would appear to have done in today's world. S&G goes to Pro due to Con's use of caps and periods.