Did 9/11 Cause The Afghanistan Conflict?

The Afghanistan conflict was planned 911 was just the catalyst.

I agree with @Summum, if by “planned” he means that the Pentagon had a contingency plan for invading Afghanistan, like it does from presumably most countries on the planet.

There was really no reason to invade Afghanistan, logical or otherwise, except as a response to 9/11. There’s no great wealth of oil, natural gas, or pretty much any other resources, and very little potential for real development. In addition, Afghanistan has chewed up and spat out conquerers for millennia, from Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great to the British (three times, no less) and ultimately the Russians. Afghanistan has been used as a DoD example for “places you should not try to invade” even since before the Russians foolishly attempted it. Afghanistan wasn’t on anybody’s military radar in a serious way before 9/11, and that includes the Bush administration and the neo-cons who may have had other invasion plans all set up and ready to go.

We invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11.
It was actually a far more logical choice than invading Iraq.

But being a war-happy stooge who prostituted himself out to the PNAC… George Bush decided to invade both countries, thus endangering the troops and our abilities in both theaters of war.

Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban at the time (and much of it still is).
I favor invading groups like the Taliban, and I favored a Taliban invasion 3 years prior to 9/11.

Also prior to 9/11, it should be noted, that George Bush was authorizing $3 million a year in welfare money to the them in their “drug war” efforts.

The War on Terror is a twofold war. Its secondary purpose is to fight terrorists wherever they may crop up. Its main purpose is to be a never-ending conflict that will make the Military Industrial Complex rich and in control for decades to come. Republicans also love the fear that terror spreads because its the trump card they can always raise, knowing full well that Democrats always surrender to the framing of an issue.

If we did not invade Afghanistan in 2002…. the Taliban would still be in much larger control. Eventually we would have had to invade them anyway, because their Klingon-interpretation of Islam is incompatible with humanity.

The Taliban is the natural evolution of the Mujahadeen fighters… the very people American armed and stoked during the Soviets’ invasion.

We would probably be better off if we had let the Soviets take over Afghanistan (if they were able to, had we not interfered).

@Kraigmo, I so rarely agree with people who use invective to describe former Presidents or disgorge what seem like conspiracy theories about PNAC or the military-industrial complex, but for whatever reason I really appreciated that post. Your thinking shows remarkable consistency and attention to detail, especially given the standard format of that type of opinion on this forum.

That’s where Osama was hiding out after 9/11. We asked the Taliban to hand him over and they refused and so we invaded. It was inevitable.

@quarkquarkquark – I’ve heard otherwise, although I don’t believe that this was the reason for the invasion.

Incidentally, I’d heard of the Project for a New American Century, but I’d never seen it abbreviated to PNAC before.

@the100thmonkey, that’s very interesting, and doubtless fodder for some pretty interesting conspiracy theories. Seems like they couldn’t have known about it before… unless we’re really, really cynical.

Did anyone ever hear the story about the Federal Government iniating 911? I saw this on televison.

love that one. so great.

@quarkquarkquark , thanks for noticing the underlying thought beneath my rhetoric. I really appreciate that.

We should have only invaded Afghanistan, and not Iraq, bucause Afghanistan was where Bin Laden was in hiding. Actually, Congress during the Reagan administration could have avoided the whole conflict if after the end of the Afghanistan-Russian conflict, we provided humanitarian aid to rebuild Afghanistan. Congress wouldn’t provide money for building hospitals, schools, etc. That was the tip of the iceberg; they couldn’t rebuild without help.

No. Many historians say the root cause was the decline of the Ottoman empire and Turkey becoming a secular country. Bin Laden often talked about this “tragedy”.

Two important factors are one-sided Western support of Israel (perceived unfairness toward the Palestinians) and Western support of totalitarian regimes (Shah in Iran and people like Mubarak in Egypt).

The 911 attacks are the culmination of this hatred that was building up against the Western world over decades.

The Afghan conflict already existed, but since the attackers had been trained there the war against the Taliban started.

@john65pennington

The report that was released about the 911 investigation is incorrect as to what happened. There are a group of scientists, engineers, physicists and others putting together the scientific information. I have held samples from 911 in my hands and helped with testing those samples. There is scientific proof that it was demolition that brought the buildings down. Especially building 7 which did not get hit by a plane and the building fell at free fall speed (meaning there was no structure at the time of the collapse). There is a DVD they are putting together and it will be available very soon.

@Summum, I don’t have want to have this argument on this forum again. The scientific proof I have had access to supports what you would probably call the “official explanation”. Suffice it to say I believe otherwise, and I hold a lot of contempt for your belief. This is fine, as I’m sure you have the same opinion. All that I ask is that you refrain from referring with certainty to the 9/11 report as “incorrect” and asserting “scientific proof” of demolition.

EDIT: Your post was also hideously off-topic. You’re proselytizing your idiocy in a place that has no need nor want of it.

There absolutely is scientific proof of demolition. I know I have been with Dr Jones and seen it myself. So I can make that claim.

I appreciate your willingness to assert that your belief is based on scientific evidence. While I am skeptical, it heartens me to see that you’re not citing easily available (and refutable) information or videos like “Loose Change” and rather drawing on your own experiences. I would be interested to hear what constitutes this scientific evidence (no sarcasm).

@quarkquarkquark They (they being the scientists and physicists who have the evidence) are creating the DVD as we speak. They are going to present this to the government with many signatures and ask for an independent investigation. I can get you a web site that you can view the information but it will have to wait till Monday/Tuesday. I’m in the middle of something that keeps me in isolation right now.

@quarkquarkquark

I did find this information you can go and look at. It will show you some of the information they are going to have in the DVD.

http://ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/396-911-explosive-testimony-exclusives.html

By the way this is for all skeptics. You should view what has been discovered with an open mind because the evidence does exist. I have held some of it in my own hands.

@quarkquarkquark

Well I showed you some information that the scientists are providing. How will you dispute that?

@Summum, to be fair, I’ve seen all of this information before and all of it refuted to a satisfactory degree. I don’t have the scientific knowledge to adequately assess the information on my own. All I have to fall back on with regard to a potential 9/11 conspiracy is

a. My varying degrees of trust in those who provide competing explanations and
b. The logical conclusions I have drawn about the plausibility of such a conspiracy

To conclude, this is what’s known as an impasse. My logic dictates a certain belief to me. You have clearly seen what you believe to be evidence that overcomes most trivial objections as to the believability of a conspiracy. I have no system by which to evaluate that evidence, but I look forward to someday exploring it in more detail.

In most areas of science, a major criterion for determining the validity and viability of a theory is its capacity to be disproven. The “official explanation” for the WTC collapse is easily disproven—you and your colleagues claim to have done that, and convincingly so. You offer a competing explanation. The problem with this, as a theory, is that it cannot be disproven. All scientific responses to 9/11 “alternate explanations” that I have observed have been shot down by your side as insufficient, complicit or invalid. The conspiracy theory in its current format cannot be disproven, and my logic dictates that I accept the more valid theory.

EDIT:
From a more personal perspective, about a year ago I showed ae911truth.org to my dad, who has been an architect for about 30 years. He was unconvinced.

@quarkquarkquark

I know and it is exactly how I expected you to respond.

Thanks

The thing is no matter how you feel about 911 the evidence is irrefutable and it exists. Science is examining it and one cannot say that building 7 didn’t fall at free fall speed. You cannot dispute that molten metal was in the basement of all three buildings. You cannot overlook tons of evidence just because you don’t agree with the outcome. It is there for all to see and it has been discovered and tested out. What was given by the committee that reported on those things that happened on 911 was not true and that cannot be refutted either. There are even countries asking America to tell the truth about what took place.

Okay, so I think I acknowledged, in addition to my more philosophical point, that I don’t buy the evidence. Unlike, “your” side, I accept that evidence against my position may exist.

However, the amount of explosive it would have taken to bring down either the towers or number 7 is massive. So excluding the fact that none of the tens of thousands of people working at the Twin Towers noticed the installation of the hundreds of tons of explosives on every floor that would have been necessary to bring down those buildings, there is one other thing.

A controlled demolition in 7 would have produced a pre-fall explosion that could have been heard at least half a mile away. Where was that explosion?

EDIT:
Structural engineers (and my architect father, as I’ve mentioned above) look at the information and plans about the World Trade Center and see no fault with the explanation of how the towers fell. That is to say, they see from the design of the towers that they would be easily felled by a plane collision causing major destruction on the top floors. The “conspirators” would have known that as well. If they were so intent on bringing down the Trade Center, and intent on blaming it on Muslim extremists, why wouldn’t the collisions have been enough? Why endanger the conspiracy by orchestrating a massive controlled demolition that would have had to involve hundreds of additional conspirators?

Your alternate explanation hinges not on the implausibility of the official explanation, but rather on its supposed impossibility. In truth, though, it is quite possible. I find it plausible as well.

The scientists have used modern science and comparision software of demolitions to examine building 7 coming down and from the many models that were diagnosed with the software the conclusion was demolition without any doubt what so ever and if you choose not to look at reality then so be it. The physical evidence was also there and has been examined. If you watch the building coming down at free fall speed and you still doubt it then you are not open minded enough to see with your own eyes the results. There is no other explanation that can even come close to building 7’s collapse. It is not up to me to convince you at all if you can’t look at the evidence that has not be tampered with and see for yourself then that is your right and your choice. But there are witnesses that were there that have come forward about explosions and others that were in explosions before the twin towers were even hit with the airplanes but I can see that no amount of evidence will suffice.

Do you know how many people were in Lower Manhattan on September 11th?

I doubt even a dozen have come forward to say they heard explosions. Everybody south of Houston that day would have heard a controlled demolition.

Explain the molten steel in the basement? Explain the fact that other buildings next to building 7 had far more extensive damage and yet did not fall. Explain how the other buildings had fires also and yet did not fall. Explain how the building came down in free fall speed and fell in on itself as did the towers?

So, my point is that I’ve heard satisfactory answers to those questions. It’s totally fine that you don’t accept those explanations. Science is all about asking questions.

What I hear is that you don’t have an explanation for how a controlled demolition would have been conducted. It’s important that you recognize that what you’ve done here is disturbing to me. Rather than acknowledge that my question is unanswerable, you have evaded it.

We’re not answering the asker’s question, and we’re at an impasse. I think part of your responsibility as somebody committed to an unpopular belief is to investigate opposition to that belief. I’m not talking about the “official explanation.” Dr. Jones’ work has been investigated and refuted by many scientists, and what’s more important than that is that he has not satisfactorily answered many questions. In addition, much of his evidence is not as conclusive as he claims it to be.

You know that you can’t convince me. It’s important to me that you understand, despite what you’ve seen, that the official explanation is not implausible. I accept that your version of events is plausible, but it is not plausible simply by virtue of the original version of events being impossible. Please understand that.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Now, that website, to me, satisfactorily refutes Dr. Jones’s claims about thermite. To you, I’m sure, it won’t. I have tried to be impartial and have been willing to accept an alternate explanation. However, I discovered well before our conversation began that all of the Truth movement’s claims were easily refutable. I predict you will find this website unsatisfactory, and your dogmatic approach, I predict, will discredit you in my eyes completely.

I have seen the thermite for myself and held it in my hands. But you are correct that we are at a point where neither will agree. Though you could not answer my questions concerning the molten steel in the basement and the fact that the building fell with free fall speed indicating there was no support structure beneath the collapse of the building.

Oh any by the way you obviously don’t understand the properties of Thermite. It doesn’t explode loud it burns hot and bright enough to melt steel and cause molten metal in the basement of all three buildings.

If fact if you want to really look at the best time to use Thermite then check this out. It is when they want it quiet to cause such mass destruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

If I were you, I wouldn’t be citing Wikipedia as a reliable source. But I love Wiki, and that is a pretty great and informative article.

You’re definitely right about my characterization of thermite. I forgot that the contention was thermite and thought instead of a standard demolition.

What does Dr. Jones say in response to allegations that he cherry-picks evidence? And has he seen the websites that claim to debunk the thermite claim specifically? His other claims come down essentially to a matter of scientific opinion. While the majority of engineers and architects support the official explanation, the alternate explanation Dr. Jones offers is, as I’ve said, not implausible. His contention about having found thermite is at major issue, because many other scientists object to his interpretation of evidence. I’m interested to hear is response to those objections.

First off the majority of engineers and architects do NOT support the official explanation that simply is not so. Many because of fear of their careers in the beginning did not support Dr. Jones. He has had so many major Physicists, Engineers and even Architects that have now sent him letters to the contrary it is quite amusing to say the least. What caused Dr Jones to lose his career was what they feared would happen to them. He has a DVD out that has many of those letters and appologies sent in his behalf. I have seen the test results and from what he has shown me there can be NO doubt there was Thermite involved as the molten metal at the basement of all three buildings indicates. The debunking that you speak about are those from the Government side of things and do not want the majority to see what really took place on 911. Do you know who was in charge of the security of the World Trade Center and also the airports where the planes flew from? I would suggest you look into that. Also I would look into why the security was shut down for 72 hours a little before the event took place. Including camera’s, dog’s and all security before 911 happened. Also President Bush met with the prophet of the LDS church within two weeks of Dr Jones losing his position on the LDS run College that his career was at. By the way Dr Jones remains to this day LDS.

One more statement then you can take for whatever it is worth to you. If the evidence is really there and it tells a different story than what the government released to the public. How does one challenge that and try to show the truth? How when the media is controlled by the same people that don’t what us to know the truth do you get out the information? What does Dr Jones gain from examining the evidence and when it tells a completely different story than the fabricated one, can one let others know? Why is it that building 7 is so shut down to information from the Government side of things. Go out and ask people how many buildings come down in the World Trade Center. Lots of the people will answer 2 the twin towers but have no knowledge about building 7? Think about that and also think about trusting what the Government tells us and thinking that is truth.

I’m done with this. You people are insane. And you labor under the delusion that you are a majority opinion. In the rare cases you admit that you are not, your fringe status is a badge of honor that allows you to feel elite.

You insist that those who disagree are mindless media drones who need to educate themselves. You pick and choose evidence, and discount evidence that conflicts with or negates yours as being either fabricated or inconclusive. You chalk all opposition to your theories up to complicity in the conspiracy, and make sweeping, nonsensical generalizations like “The debunking that you speak about are those from the Government side of things”. You completely ignore refutations that fall outside easily dismissible boundaries, such as when I tell you that family members of mine are experts on this topic, and fully accept the official explanation.

The dubious “experts” of your movement include amateur documentary filmmakers and theologians, and your high priest, Dr. Steven Jones, is a man who believes Jesus Christ visited the Americas and has gone to great lengths to attempt to prove that beyond all evidence to the contrary.

When, in rare cases, the 9/11 revisionist movement comes across evidence that has not already been explained, you assert a highly technical explanation having to do with s supposed conspiracy. When alternate causes for such evidence are offered, you either ignore them or dismiss them with one of the epithets I have mentioned above.

All this—and the simple fact that the conspiracy you allege would have involved hundreds of people. The implausibility of such a conspiracy defies logic and common sense, but you allow your mistrust of the U.S. government and desire to be a member of an “elite” group with “special knowledge” to cloud your (ostensibly) better judgment. When you encounter people like me, who maintain aggressive opposition to your views, you either dismiss us by telling us to “educate” ourselves or, in your case, proclaim the obviousness of the conspiracy supposedly dictated by the evidence you have so scrupulously cherry-picked.

I don’t know your background. I don’t know how smart you are. I would note, as our discussion has descended into more technical and philosophical grounds, that your writings have become increasingly difficult to understand—plagued with grammatical, spelling, and reasoning errors.

Face the facts. You have been brainwashed. You are all too willing to believe in a conspiracy, and have forfeited your capacity for critical thought.

Well then @quarkquarkquark give some evidence as to why there was molten metal in the basements of the 3 buildings. Also explain for us please how the buildings came down at free fall speed. These are points that cannot be ignored and will not go away. There are nations asking for answers not just many inside of America. Oh you give the hype that the media does and do it just as they want you too. I don’t dismiss you at all cause for now you are the majority until others view the infomation without bias that has been discovered. Many are seeing things for what they are and in time all will. Good luck to you and I have no anomosity towards you or anyone else. I just want some answers explained that make some sort of sense which the government has NOT provided.

http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

This is one more article on those that witnessed the heat and molten metal evven after days from the collapse of the buildings. Regular fire doesn’t cause this kind of heat and it would be good for you to read the witnesses.

Do we need a conspiracy theory when we have a conspiracy fact?