New: theory of conspiracy theories:

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]What makes it unremarkable? It was a WTC building. Isn't that enough?

No, it's not enough. The two main towers were iconic - I never even heard of WTC building 7 before I read about these ludicrous conspiracy theories.

As I said before, one jet failed to reach the highjacker's intended target. Do you know what the specific intended targe ...[text shortened]... and say, the Capitol or the White House, they opted for WTC7? Is that what you honestly believe?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

Originally posted by DeepThought
Where we get military equipment from is itself political.

Everything you listed are the types of things that the war in Iraq did not require new purchases of. The war may have changed long term buying strategies, but I doubt the UK went into the war thinking 'hey, this will give us an excuse to build two new carriers'.
The issue here is where any extra spending due to the war would be expected to go. If it went primarily to British companies then no big loss. If the war actually encouraged the US to buy more UK products then maybe even a net gain.
All I am saying is that simply saying 'war costs money and nobody wants to spend money' is totally wrong and ignores the bigger picture.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Everything you listed are the types of things that the war in Iraq did not require new purchases of. The war may have changed long term buying strategies, but I doubt the UK went into the war thinking 'hey, this will give us an excuse to build two new carriers'.
The issue here is where any extra spending due to the war would be expected to go. If it went ...[text shortened]... ar costs money and nobody wants to spend money' is totally wrong and ignores the bigger picture.

They lost a few tornados which presumably have to be replaced. You have to feed 50,000 people, provide fuel (and air power uses a lot of fuel), process prisoners, all this stuff costs money which comes out of government coffers. My point is that they are not going to involve themselves in a conspiracy to allow tall buildings to be destroyed with the sole purpose of starting a war.

If the proposed war is justified on 'bigger picture' grounds then they'll do it based on the situation in the region anyway, such as with Syria now. If they were going to act secretly then a trick like the one Nazi Germany pulled on Poland would be more likely.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My point is that they are not going to involve themselves in a conspiracy to allow tall buildings to be destroyed with the sole purpose of starting a war.

Well you are obviously wrong. The Iraq war was started for contrived reasons as have several other wars the US has deliberately started.

If the proposed war is justified on 'bigger picture' grounds then they'll do it based on the situation in the region anyway, such as with Syria now.
So what happens to the whole 'it costs money so they won't do it' argument then?

If they were going to act secretly then a trick like the one Nazi Germany pulled on Poland would be more likely.
I fully agree that sabotaging the world trade centre is not something the US government would have done. I disagree that 'the cost of war' is a good reason to think they didn't. The government was clearly motivated enough to go to war in the middle east having done so many times before and since despite the costs and largely on economic grounds (oil).

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

Thank you very much for the article. I ask those in doubt to please give it a read (as you already have done). Tear it apart limb by limb...if you can?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That is a point I think any reasonable person would conclude. All the scenario's of conspiracy are based on the supposed strength of the building, 'never happened anywhere' kind of argument but it is clear they came down and no proof of any explosives were found, unambiguous proof. For instance, the explosives used by the military have codes that can be read out after an explosion and no such were found. Which doesn't make it impossible but no real evidence was found of any kind of explosive that couldn't be explained by metal combustion chemistry.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In any case the European front was won mainly by the USSR, so it's unlikely that it would have affected the outcome of the war much, although the aftermath of the war would likely have been very different.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In any case the European front was won mainly by the USSR, so it's unlikely that it would have affected the outcome of the war much, although the aftermath of the war would likely have been very different.

North Africa and Italy.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Do you think the conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor is true? You know, where FDR allegedly was told about incoming planes and such or had knowledge days in advance somehow but let the attack commence anyway to goad the US public into accepting the declaration of war against Japan?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you think the conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor is true? You know, where FDR allegedly was told about incoming planes and such or had knowledge days in advance somehow but let the attack commence anyway to goad the US public into accepting the declaration of war against Japan?

It depends what you mean. The US may have expected some sort of attack, and may have thought that that would lead them into the war, but I don't think they had detailed knowledge of what was going to happen. At one pole you have, "Eventually Japan will attack US interests in the Pacific, and that will give us the excuse we need to enter the war." at the other "Pearl Harbour will be attacked on December 7th, and that will get us into the war.", I think there's a fairly high chance of the former and a fairly low chance of the latter. As the conspiracy theory becomes more detailed the chances of it being true diminish.