Do you think the 9/11 attacks were legit ??

Why is this thread at 100 posts?

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.SUD123456

This is a great example of rhetoric compared to logic & reason.

19 men with boxcutters...factual....presented as unbelievable, but is perfectly believable because prior to 9/11 standard operating procedure for airlines was to immediately cooperate with hijackers. 19 men with fingers in their coat pockets pretending to have guns could have accomplished the same thing.

a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop....designed to denigrate the opponent, who cares if the guy was on dialysis, or had cancer, or was a super fit warrior. Of what relevance is this at all. Am I supposed to believe that only guys in suits in office towers are smart enough to plan this?

the most sophisticated penetration....laughably false. This was not sophisticated at all. It was simple. Which is why it worked. Your common drug smuggler runs more 'sophisticated penetrations' than this.

Most heavily defended air-space in the world...also laughably false. Internal US air travel then and pretty much still today is the most open, least defended air-space. At the time, the entire air defence apparatus was pointed outwards towards the borders and beyond. No one imagined an air threat originating from inside the country so no one devised systems to combat that. Why would they have internal air defense?

Overpowering the passengers....with the exception of the Pennsylvania flight the passengers appeared to have followed crew orders/protocol and cooperated. Why wouldn't they? So what overpowering are we talking about?

And military trained combat pilots...same answer as the passengers. Moreover, what makes anyone think military trained pilots are Rambo or special forces trained or something. Assuming the airline pilots did previously have some military training, they would have had to run, take a phys ed test, and qualify with a sidearm once a year. Big deal. Having spent 9 yrs as an officer in the airforce I can assure you that these pilots are not Rambos or Terminators. And as civilian pilots they aren't anything more than an average guy.

Before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor....sounds impressive...until you turn off the aircraft transponder making you a speck in a big wide sky. Meanwhile, no one stationed alert aircraft to defend the interior against rogue passenger planes. And the military does not do so well with making things up on the fly so you can imagine just how confused every one would be. Hardly surprising. It would take a while for civilian air traffic control to figure out anything was wrong at all. And then they couldn't possibly connect multiple events. And then who exactly do you tell? Its not like these guys practiced calling the military every day. Then you work the chain of command. Then someone sends an order to an alert fighter base and the two pilots take 15 min to launch. Then they have to find a speck in the sky. Yep sounds easy, like a well oiled machine..not.

I could do the same with every phrase/sentence of your rubbish link, but I prefer to pity you instead.

feel free to fire a SUD missile of truth at the rest of the post, bro explain wtc 7 maybeMrPraline

The WTC 7 page has all the information needed as well as the WTC 7 Pull page. WTC 7 was damaged when WTC 1 collapsed and it burned for hours. The loss of portions of the building and the damage to the emergency generator fuel system burning unchecked weakend at least one of 3 trusses that supported the upper floors of the building and at least 1/4 of the lower part of the building was damaged and unable to support the weight when said truss failed.

Yes I believe they were legit, I'm not some conspiracy nutjob.

9/11 is what happens when you cross Lanfear. cybrcatter

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]

Yeah we went to iraq and bin laden was not there ??

noscope-ak47

Ok we were in iraq way before 19 march if you know what I mean.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Conspiracy theories have been debunked. But I guess some people don't look for facts....sonicare

Sure it was legit as it actually happened.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

One conspiracy theory, and perhaps the most 'patriotic' theory, is that we were attacked by a group of Middle Eastern people who hate the idea of Freedom & Liberty and despise the West, especially the US, for being the so called epitome of what a free nation is. That somehow these outsiders were able to make a mockery out of US by breaching and circumventing it's security on all levels and were able to conduct the most heinous attack on America since Pearl Harbour

Another conspiracy theory suggests that a group of well funded and trained Middle Eastern people attacked the US in retaliation to the oppressive conduct and nature of the continuous American presence in their region of the globe, but that higher ups in the administration at the time allowed the attacks to be for the most part, successfully accomplished(like Pearl Harbor), so that the US could have reason and the support of the nation to advance the policies of the conglomerates who have the government in their pockets. The reason why Saddam Hussein's head was back in the crosshairs is because the US had refused to leave Iraq once the first Desert Gulf War had ended. So Hussein switched his oil transactions from the Dollar to the Euro which put a halt on the 'PetroDollar', and since Iraq is one of the US's largest importers of oil, the US then had to get the more expensive Euro to get the same oil it was getting with it's very own Greenbacks. Now we have military bases overlooking the Garden of Eden to make sure we're nearby incase other surrounding nations don't follow the political & corporate interests of America and it's handlers.

_R34LiTY_

I believe there were terrorists, definitely. But the government used 9/11 to justify an unnecessary war.MarieAugust

If you were alive during the Peal Harbor attacks I guess you'd say going to war with Japan was stupid, too.

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Sure it was legit as it actually happened.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

One conspiracy theory, and perhaps the most 'patriotic' theory, is that we were attacked by a group of Middle Eastern people who hate the idea of Freedom & Liberty and despise the West, especially the US, for being the so called epitome of what a free nation is. That somehow these outsiders were able to make a mockery out of US by breaching and circumventing it's security on all levels and were able to conduct the most heinous attack on America since Pearl Harbour

Another conspiracy theory suggests that a group of well funded and trained Middle Eastern people attacked the US in retaliation to the oppressive conduct and nature of the continuous American presence in their region of the globe, but that higher ups in the administration at the time allowed the attacks to be for the most part, successfully accomplished(like Pearl Harbor), so that the US could have reason and the support of the nation to advance the policies of the conglomerates who have the government in their pockets. The reason why Saddam Hussein's head was back in the crosshairs is because the US had refused to leave Iraq once the first Desert Gulf War had ended. So Hussein switched his oil transactions from the Dollar to the Euro which put a halt on the 'PetroDollar', and since Iraq is one of the US's largest importers of oil, the US then had to get the more expensive Euro to get the same oil it was getting with it's very own Greenbacks. Now we have military bases overlooking the Garden of Eden to make sure we're nearby incase other surrounding nations don't follow the political & corporate interests of America and it's handlers.

sethman410

I'm guessing a majority of people in America don't remember that Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. Iraq was 2003

[QUOTE="MarieAugust"]I believe there were terrorists, definitely. But the government used 9/11 to justify an unnecessary war.wis3boi

If you were alive during the Peal Harbor attacks I guess you'd say going to war with Japan was stupid, too.

I can't beleive this is even up for debate. They were muslim terrorists who killed innocent lives. I respect all religion and beleifs but what I wrote is the truth.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Sure it was legit as it actually happened.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

One conspiracy theory, and perhaps the most 'patriotic' theory, is that we were attacked by a group of Middle Eastern people who hate the idea of Freedom & Liberty and despise the West, especially the US, for being the so called epitome of what a free nation is. That somehow these outsiders were able to make a mockery out of US by breaching and circumventing it's security on all levels and were able to conduct the most heinous attack on America since Pearl Harbour

Another conspiracy theory suggests that a group of well funded and trained Middle Eastern people attacked the US in retaliation to the oppressive conduct and nature of the continuous American presence in their region of the globe, but that higher ups in the administration at the time allowed the attacks to be for the most part, successfully accomplished(like Pearl Harbor), so that the US could have reason and the support of the nation to advance the policies of the conglomerates who have the government in their pockets. The reason why Saddam Hussein's head was back in the crosshairs is because the US had refused to leave Iraq once the first Desert Gulf War had ended. So Hussein switched his oil transactions from the Dollar to the Euro which put a halt on the 'PetroDollar', and since Iraq is one of the US's largest importers of oil, the US then had to get the more expensive Euro to get the same oil it was getting with it's very own Greenbacks. Now we have military bases overlooking the Garden of Eden to make sure we're nearby incase other surrounding nations don't follow the political & corporate interests of America and it's handlers.

wis3boi

I'm guessing a majority of people in America don't remember that Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. Iraq was 2003

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="MarieAugust"]I believe there were terrorists, definitely. But the government used 9/11 to justify an unnecessary war.MarieAugust

If you were alive during the Peal Harbor attacks I guess you'd say going to war with Japan was stupid, too.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] I don't understand. Why are some of you saying that 9/11 caused the invasion of Iraq? We invaded Afganistan, not Iraq because of 9/11.sethman410

I'm guessing a majority of people in America don't remember that Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. Iraq was 2003

Letter from the president to congress.

"I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Cheney's Claims:

"Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]"

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

I'm guessing a majority of people in America don't remember that Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. Iraq was 2003

Person0

Letter from the president to congress.

"I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]"

EDIT: I mean, don't you think it's silly just to invade those countries just only to get rid of Al-Qaida or the Taliban? We have many other alternatives, like the CIA. But Afghanistan was at the time pretty much controlled by the Taliban which is a terrorist organization. That was the biggest reason to invade afganistan. Al queda isn't the biggest reason to invade Iraq though because Iraq was not owned by the Al queda. But I could be wrong, this is all I know.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Exactly. We invaded Iraq because Sadam Hussein had "Weopons of Mass Destruction". There are also many other reasons. Iraq wasn't stable at the time and it pumps out oil. We wanted to keep it stable to ease the oil industry. Oh, and we also wanted a base there. The closest base to Iran besides Iraq is far away, I forgot where though.sethman410

Letter from the president to congress.

"I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]"

The two main reasons that the Bush administration gave for going to war in Iraq were WMDs and Terrorism.

Yes Al-Qaida is all over the mid east, but their involvment was given as a reason to invade iraq in Bush's own words to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate.Which disproves your claims that 9/11 was not used as a reason to invade Iraq

also "CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."

9/11 and Al-Qaeda were used as a way to get public opinion in favor of attacking Iraq although they were not the only reason.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Letter from the president to congress.

"I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]"

Person0

And remember... the WMDs have never been found, which convinces me is all just propoganda bs. I know much about history and trust me, the govt uses propoganda so much like crazy especially the Nazis during WW2. The U.S. invested so much in those countries to keep the economy stable. Why would you spend 100 billion a year on Iraq and Afganistan individually to just get rid of Al queda. It seems so wrong to me.

This again? 9/11 was almost 11 years ago, we have heard all the BS theories already.TheWalkingGhost

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]This again? 9/11 was almost 11 years ago, we have heard all the BS theories already.sethman410

Seriously? :|

For the real reasons oil is pretty obvious .Person0

Over nine years after the invasion and Iraqi oil still isn't powering that BMW you see driving past you on the Interstate. With the amount of money the US spent in the Middle East between 2003 and today, it would have been cheaper to just pressure the UN to lift sanctions so we could buy the oil outright than to invade and in the middle of the occupation figure out a way to get it out of the country.

They sure as hell weren't legit when you see the holes in the story. (omg he said story... correct him nao!!) But yea, sadly, we'll never know the truth. We only know (or think we know) what we're told.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="MarieAugust"]I believe there were terrorists, definitely. But the government used 9/11 to justify an unnecessary war.MarieAugust

If you were alive during the Peal Harbor attacks I guess you'd say going to war with Japan was stupid, too.

The fact you don't even remember exactly what happened only 10 years ago is saddening. Afghanistan invaded in 2001...where the terrorists came from and were trained. Iraq wasn't until 2003, and for different reasons. Current events 101.

They sure as hell weren't legit when you see the holes in the story. (omg he said story... correct him nao!!) But yea, sadly, we'll never know the truth. We only know (or think we know) what we're told.

Mystic-G

All I know is that our government is ridiculously corrupt. Wouldn't be surprised. Jagged3dge

[QUOTE="Jagged3dge"]All I know is that our government is ridiculously corrupt. Wouldn't be surprised. Aljosa23

TT fell at around the same time as a building would during a controlled demolition.

Yup, its legit... if you're American.

TT fell at around the same time as a building would during a controlled demolition.

Yup, its legit... if you're American.

ThisIsTwoFace

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Sure it was legit as it actually happened.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

One conspiracy theory, and perhaps the most 'patriotic' theory, is that we were attacked by a group of Middle Eastern people who hate the idea of Freedom & Liberty and despise the West, especially the US, for being the so called epitome of what a free nation is. That somehow these outsiders were able to make a mockery out of US by breaching and circumventing it's security on all levels and were able to conduct the most heinous attack on America since Pearl Harbour

Another conspiracy theory suggests that a group of well funded and trained Middle Eastern people attacked the US in retaliation to the oppressive conduct and nature of the continuous American presence in their region of the globe, but that higher ups in the administration at the time allowed the attacks to be for the most part, successfully accomplished(like Pearl Harbor), so that the US could have reason and the support of the nation to advance the policies of the conglomerates who have the government in their pockets. The reason why Saddam Hussein's head was back in the crosshairs is because the US had refused to leave Iraq once the first Desert Gulf War had ended. So Hussein switched his oil transactions from the Dollar to the Euro which put a halt on the 'PetroDollar', and since Iraq is one of the US's largest importers of oil, the US then had to get the more expensive Euro to get the same oil it was getting with it's very own Greenbacks. Now we have military bases overlooking the Garden of Eden to make sure we're nearby incase other surrounding nations don't follow the political & corporate interests of America and it's handlers.

sethman410

In case you didn't read, I mentioned what the alleged weapon of mass destruction was that gave the US government reason for going into Iraq, which was only partially the reason. I never said 9/11 caused the invasion of Iraq, but now that you mention it, it certainly perpetuated the event because of intelligence(which turned out to be false, by the way) that claimed Hussein was harboring and/or working Al Qaeda members along with the WMDs.

I gotta admit I did but I had a conversation with a guy that asked question that I admit had me stumped. I now think that there needs to be a major investigation into the largest attack on american soil. I also think that the laws that were passed need to be overturned and the troops recalled. Americans need to ask questions and to pay attention to what their govenment is doing.

noscope-ak47

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Person0"] For the real reasons oil is pretty obvious .Person0

One theory that kind of goes along with oil being the reason for invading Iraq was the event when Hussein switched his oil transactions from the Dollar to the Euro as a way to try to hurt the US for not following through on it's word that the US army would leave Iraq entirely after the first Gulf War and the continous bombarding from US warplanes even after Operation Desert Storm was declared "Mission Accomplished". When Hussein switched to the Euro, that cut off the US's very own money tree of the "PetroDollar" recycling system in which, the Iraq/Saudi Arabia etc would buy Dollars and sell their oil through OPEC in $ as well, whatever money they'd make they'd reinvest it back to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and into the Dollar.

However, the subsequent result of switching oil sales to Euros was that US had to sell goods & services to Europe to get the more expensive Euro to get the oil it was getting with it's very own magic of the printing press. Once the US took over, they put into office at Iraq a former member of Unocal, who was very sympathetic to US interest, and had no problem switching the oil transactions from the Euro back to the Dollar.

Other possible reasons like aquiring land for military bases could've also played a factor, or maybe they just wanted to control the ancient land of Babylon for reason we probably don't understand.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Person0"] For the real reasons oil is pretty obvious .Person0

Iraq's oil reserves are only the 5th largest in the world at this point. If you look at production, it's relatively small fry.

And I would think in any case that after 9 years, Iraq as a whole is no more secure than it was beforehand, oil and all (and certainly not completely or in any way reliably aligned with U.S. interests).

And on a related note, I laugh at those who think that Saddam had the clout to change the pricing currency of oil from USD to EUR (at least in any serious threat to U.S. interests).

And on a related note, I laugh at those who think that Saddam had the clout to change the pricing currency of oil from USD to EUR (at least in any serious threat to U.S. interests).

jetpower3

I take it then that you laugh at Time Magazine as well....

Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."

The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.

The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html#ixzz1yi63CDSDTime Magazine

Incidentally, Muammar Ghadafi suffered the same fate when he too ditched the Dollar in order to sell his oil in gold backed African Dinars, a currency Ghadafi was looking to introduce.

...

A country's wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.

"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,"says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

"So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."

And it has happened before.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

...

http://www.rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/RT

I'll take your laughter as part of your own lunacy.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Jagged3dge"]All I know is that our government is ridiculously corrupt. Wouldn't be surprised. Jagged3dge

It really wouldn't be. The US has never needed such elaborate reasons to use military force before. Not sure why they'd suddenly construct something like 9/11 to justify now (err, then rather). If they were manufacturing evidence to go to war in Afghanistan then all they would have needed to do is construct a few intelligence reports and the American public never would have given it a second thought.