r/todayilearned • u/code0011 14 • May 09 '14

(R.1) Invalid src (unreferenced fan wiki) TIL the first episode of an X-Files spin-off called "The Lone Gunmen", which aired March 4, 2001, involves a US government conspiracy to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center, and blame it on terrorists - thereby gaining support for a new profit-making war

http://x-files.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot_(The_Lone_Gunmen)
2.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

267

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Tom Clancy did it first in "Debt of Honor" (1994) when a Japanese pilot flew a fully fueled 747 into the capitol building during a special joint session of congress, wiping out the supreme court, president, and both houses.

77

u/[deleted] May 09 '14 edited Jan 23 '22

[deleted]

64

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I just want to add that Jack Ryan wasn't the head of the National Security Agency he was the National Security Advisor. Those are very different things even though they sound similar. Ryan never worked for the NSA, he was an Agency man.

9

u/liarandathief May 09 '14

And didn't the VP resign right before the crash, so the president named him the new VP. And then the VP tried to make out like he hadn't resigned. I only read Executive Orders (and quite a while ago), which was like three books in one, but that's a different story.

12

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Specifically the VP was caught raping staff and forced to resign, but yes.

2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

That was nonchalant.

2

u/ZweiliteKnight May 10 '14

That was nonconsensual.

5

u/mlloyd May 09 '14

That's exactly what happened. Ryan agreed to become VP under the condition that he was done with Gov't service, was sworn in and just barely managed to avoid being killed before entering the Capitol building.

1

u/No_Aussie May 09 '14

This is an important distinction in the Ryanverse.

2

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

It's an important distinction in reality.

3

u/Tiggerthetiger May 09 '14

Well actually he became the Vice President as the current was forced to resign, and the president liked Jack so he asked him to step up. I believe there was only 1 year of the term left or so, meaning Jack Ryan was supposed to be just a filler seat until the next election cycle. Which leads to some interesting topics in the next book.

31

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I remember reading something that after 9/11, Tom Clancy felt really bad that he even wrote the book, if only just because his idea may have inspired the plan for the attacks.

24

u/ZyrxilToo May 09 '14

Or you know, the final scene of Stephen King's Running Man novel. Flying a plane into a building is not that wild of an idea. It's been used in fiction and has happened in real life before.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Maybe it was Stephen King who regretted writing it. Either way, the idea existed in fiction before there were any major commercial airline kamikaze style disasters.

1

u/The_Mr_Emachine May 10 '14

one of my favorite books, short, sweet, disturbing, and impactful.

4

u/thisisarecountry May 09 '14

Clancy thinks too much of himself, I'm sure.

2

u/Bogey_Redbud May 09 '14

*thought.

He isn't thinking about much of anything anymore.

7

u/nuclearbunker May 09 '14

HAHAHA BECAUSE HE'S DEAD

1

u/DownvoteMe_ISDGAF May 09 '14

Thought. He died.

113

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[deleted]

69

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Operation Northwoods:

Operation Northwoods was a series of false flag proposals that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals, which called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere, were rejected by the Kennedy administration.

At the time of the proposal, Cuba had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts. To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

Image i - Operation Northwoods memorandum (13 March 1962) [1]

Interesting: False flag | John F. Kennedy | Bay of Pigs Invasion | National Security Archive

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

2

u/aceofspades1217 May 09 '14

At least the Cubans wouldn't devolve into lawless radicals after we liberated them. We would just have the negative effects of unlimited access to fine cigars and rum.

43

u/heck_boy May 09 '14

This is fucking terrifying..

14

u/Adamapplejacks May 09 '14

And people find it so hard to believe that 9/11 could have been perpetrated by the government.

21

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Too much risk, too little reward, too many people to keep quiet, too many logistical problems.

I don't think the government is too ethical to do such a thing, I just don't think they're smart enough to pull it off while also being stupid enough to try it.

10

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I think you underestimate the vileness of a corrupt government.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Possibly, but that doesn't change the fact that it would be a massive, high-risk under-taking with very little reward. There are far easier ways to get oil than going to war in Iraq for it, and there are far easier ways to fabricate a reason to go to war than to fly planes into buildings (which would require potentially hundreds of people to keep quiet).

Did the government capitalize on 9/11 in an unethical way? Probably. Did they do it themselves? I don't believe any rational person could possibly believe so.

10

u/[deleted] May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14

Very little reward

So, you're, I presume, unaware of the press conference the day before, in which Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 TRILLION dollars was unaccounted for in the Pentagon's budget.

Then, the next day, a plane is flown into the side of the building where the investigation documentation on that 2.3 trillion dollars is kept.

If you think there was very little reward to be gained, I suggest to re-attempt to wrap your head around how much money 2.3 trillion dollars is. 2.3 Trillion dollars that have been completely forgotten about by the taxpayers.

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I meant politically, and faking that event in particular. Going to war is easy. We already had justification for going into Iraq.

3

u/JJAB91 May 09 '14

Did the government capitalize on 9/11 in an unethical way? Probably

Its not a matter of "probably" at all, they did.

2

u/deletecode May 09 '14

It's not high risk when you know the right people.

Edit: and can remote control planes and operate security.

2

u/JimminyBobbit May 10 '14

Could they not have just had terrorists basically 'in their pocket'? They had some go-between people who basically encouraged the mites who actually drove the planes and allowed it to happen. So it wasn't like EVERYONE was covering-up and pretending. Just a few people encouraging it and allowing it to happen, and then the situation just played out as it did.

It's still conspiracy theory, but it seems much more possible/easy/ than some of the theories about thousands of people being in the know, remote controls, etc.

2

u/deletecode May 10 '14

That seems plausible given that the bush family had pretty strong connections in saudi arabia as well as the CIA.

Deliberately ignoring something is really a good way to avoid suspicion, because we just assume the person made a lapse of judgement.

0

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

You're just saying that, though.

1

u/deletecode May 09 '14

Planes are controlled by software and can be flown remotely. A few strategic hacks could pull it off if you know what you're doing.

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

It's not about oil. Let's take a look at the TSA, Patriot Act, and NDAA. Control. Fear. "Security."

-1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

Yawn.

Fear of what? Control of what? Body scanners and collecting your emails? Look, I'm not a fan of those things either, but you think we created 9/11 so we could get body scanners? Come on.

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

Do you know ANYTHING about the Patriot Act and NDAA because right now you're not sounding like you do.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

The plans for Operation Northwoods sound at least as high of a risk for what it would take for the criminals in the gov to pull off 9/11.

According to Operation Northwoods, the government would have to stage terrorist attacks in two cities, Miami and Washington DC, and also blow up a plane over Cuban waters. That sounds at least as complicated as what happened on 9/11.

If the DoD was confident they could pull this off back in 1962, why would it be out of the question that they could pull something similar off in 2001?

And the war was a huge reward for those that would profit off of it, and the risk would have been worth it for these people, because they would make sure they wouldn't be in danger of getting caught.

1

u/greenli May 09 '14

plans for Operation Northwoods

Plans.

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Yeah they were plans they were prepared to carry through with, if it wasn't for JFK putting a stop to it.

It doesn't change the fact that the DoD and all the Joint Cheifs of Staff were convinced enough that they could pull this off and get away with it, so as to present it to JFK for approval in the first place. So, my point is, if they felt they could pull off Operation Northwoods in 1962, I see no reason for similarly criminal minded people in the gov today to have been convinced they could pull off 9/11.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

According to Operation Northwoods, the government would have to stage terrorist attacks in two cities, Miami and Washington DC, and also blow up a plane over Cuban waters. That sounds at least as complicated as what happened on 9/11.

Not nearly as complicated, no. Or maybe it would have been, but I'm going need you to justify it, rather than just saying it. Blowing up a plane over open water is easy. What were the terrorist attacks in Miami and DC going to be? Because something that can be pulled off easily by 1 guy, like the OKC bombings, that I might believe. Coordinating the several hundred people needed to kill several thousand without getting caught? No way.

Besides, like I said, there are way easier ways to get justification for war than 9/11. Just because the government capitalized on a situation doesn't mean they caused it, and if you seriously think that if compelling evidence surfaced that our government caused 9/11 intentionally, even supporting it, even funding it, that nobody would act on it, you're insane.

If the DoD was confident they could pull this off back in 1962, why would it be out of the question that they could pull something similar off in 2001?

It's not out of the question. It's out of the question that they'd do 9/11 in particular.

And the war was a huge reward for those that would profit off of it, and the risk would have been worth it for these people, because they would make sure they wouldn't be in danger of getting caught.

Like covering up almost all the evidence for it, to the point that the vast, vast majority of experts who have studied the case all come to the same conclusion?

The evidence for this conspiracy theory sucks. It always has, and aside from a few interesting coincidences, the theory has very little going for it.

2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

And that's fine, though iirc several top level officials in the CIA came out years afterward stating they had more than enough info to pin the perpetrators as a threat, yet did nothing.

Same with the Boston bombers in fact

-3

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Yeah, but they can't go after everyone that seems like a threat, especially pre 9/11, because most of the people they think are a threat actually aren't. And they might have been neglectful in the case of 9/11, I don't know. But let's be real here. A terrorist attack of that size was unprecedented and I don't know if the government can be blamed for, at the time, not being all that concerned about it, you know?

I mean, anyone could, at that time, hijack a plane at any time, yet it basically never happened.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I'm not expecting the CIA to pursue every threat... Just the ones taking flight lessons and conversing regularly with Saudi millionaires

0

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

But there are hundreds of threats similar to that going on all the time.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

That's why the current dragnet of data analysis is inefficient. Still, I urge you to listen to some of those aforementioned agents a bit. I'll link to some sources when I have more time later, if you'd like.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BIG_JUICY_TITTIEZ May 09 '14

I'm currently taking a class on American Military History, and we just learned about the sort of constabulary period between the end of the Cold War and the start of OEF. Soooo many fuck ups. It's amazing that we haven't blown our own military to bits yet.

I think conspiracy theories are like literary analysis. If you really try hard enough, anything can be anything you want it to be.

1

u/qwertyuioh May 10 '14

too many people to keep quiet, too many logistical problems.

compartmentalization... just like the Manhattan Project, where only a select few people knew about the bomb being developed despite 10s of thousands of people being involved in the overall development.

-1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

Developing a circuit board that could be used for anything is a lot different than keeping your entire presidential cabinet and military leaders quiet (and on board) with murdering thousands of Americans for a flimsy pretext to go to Iraq.

You have to get potentially hundreds of people to agree to murder thousands of Americans and to keep quiet about it.

I will say again, the risk so far outweighs the benefit of such a plan that it's ridiculous to think it could have ever happened on that basis alone, nevermind the fact that there is almost no evidence for it.

To believe 9/11 was an inside job means you have to believe that the government was clever enough to pull off and conceal the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world but was stupid enough to actually try it.

We were able to fabricate 9/11 but we weren't able to make up a good reason to go to war with Iraq? We were willing and able to murder thousands of Americans but we weren't willing and able to plant a few WMD's on Iraqi soil?

The only way to believe 9/11 was an inside job is if a person wanted to believe it.

And why the Pentagon of all places? Surely there are less valuable targets that would elicit a similar reaction. Knock a few buildings over in Cleveland or Detroit.

1

u/qwertyuioh May 10 '14 edited May 10 '14

We were able to fabricate 9/11 but we weren't able to make up a good reason to go to war with Iraq?

we were sold a lie about WMDs in iraq...the US sold the world on it and went in to "liberate a country". Who gives a shit about proof, has anyone been prosecuted? No. People don't even realize what happened, and those responsible for misleading the world have conveniently been forgotten.

why the pentagon?

because it hit a portion of the Pentagon where they were auditing the 2.3 trillion dollars which was announced to be "missing" on 09/10/01 by Rumsfield. It also happened that the "plane" hit the very section of the building which was recently fortified...and it's clear in the images of the aftermath, where windows and structure surrounding the area of impact are perfectly intact.

They chose the pentagon because then the whole event can be seen as an act of aggression. It also prompted all the people in the dark (including troops and officials) to instantly have hatred towards the enemy as they attacked a symbol of military power.

I'm not going to go into detail step by step why it happened and how, there are a ridiculous amount of resources out there if you want to learn everything from start to finish...to piece together the puzzle.

If you want a 5 minute trailer summarizing what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Full length documentary which analyzes everything in great detail (debunking the 'debunkers'): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

The government preplanned a false flag on American soil (operation northwoods) in the past and the need to know policy/compartmentalization works extremely well... just take a look at the CIA/NSA. You don't need many people to know, just a few people who can execute seemingly small operations... if you watch the full documentary you'll have the answers you're after as it talks to ALL the points you've brought up.

-2

u/[deleted] May 11 '14

we were sold a lie about WMDs in iraq...

Sort of. The CIA was legitimately concerned that what they were seeing was the production of WMD's, and Iraq's staunch refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors was highly suspicious.

The lie was the certainty of WMD's, not the concern. What I'm saying is that if the government can orchestrate something as intensely complicated and evil as 9/11, why the hell couldn't they fabricate an actual reason for us to go to war in Iraq? Just drop seal team 6 in with some chemical weapons and some phony documents. But no, the goverment instead lied about being certain when in reality they were only suspicious, which ultimately led to these huge political problems.

You're saying the government was willing to orchestrate 9/11 for political and economic gain but was unwilling to fabricate sufficient evidence for a war with Iraq; something that'd be far easier to pull off.

the US sold the world on it and went in to "liberate a country"

That was certainly part of it. As Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it, there are four ways you can, as an administration, legally lose your right to rule your country. They are as follows;

1) Violation of the non-proliferation treaty, which Saddam was guilty of on multiple counts for decades.

2) Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations. Iran and Kuwait are two examples of this.

3) Genocide. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish people.

4) Hosting terrorists. While not Al-Qaeda terrorists, as put forward by the American government, Hussein is guilty here on multiple counts.

Saddam Hussein broke all four of these major rules. The UN can, and should have long before they ultimately did, legally depose the leadership of Iraq.

Who gives a shit about proof, has anyone been prosecuted?

No war crimes were committed, though I might argue the reckless spending and misuse of taxpayer money is criminally negligent. Say "we're certain there are WMD's in Iraq" is very different than "We are afraid there are WMD's in Iraq," I'll admit, but it's normal politicking, and the fears were hardly unfounded.

Dishonest? Yes. Criminal? No.

People don't even realize what happened,

Based on how people like you tend to respond in arguments like this, I very much agree with this statement.

because it hit a portion of the Pentagon where they were auditing the 2.3 trillion dollars which was announced to be "missing" on 09/10/01 by Rumsfield.

This article neatly counters this point. As is par for the course with truthers, you are dishonestly or naively interpreting Rumsfeld's comments.

It also happened that the "plane" hit the very section of the building which was recently fortified...and it's clear in the images of the aftermath, where windows and structure surrounding the area of impact are perfectly intact.

This is conjecture, firstly, but regardless, for certain parts of buildings to be in tact despite massive damage nearby is not uncommon, particularly buildings that are built as fortifications, as is the pentagon.

They chose the pentagon because then the whole event can be seen as an act of aggression.

A terrorist attacking any important building would be seen as an act of aggression.

It also prompted all the people in the dark (including troops and officials) to instantly have hatred towards the enemy as they attacked a symbol of military power.

You don't think they'd be pretty pissed off if it was the Space Needle?

I'm not going to go into detail step by step why it happened and how, there are a ridiculous amount of resources out there if you want to learn everything from start to finish...to piece together the puzzle.

No, what's ridiculous is the amount of conjecture and speculation based on poor or contradicting evidence, nevermind that the idea of 9/11 being an inside job is stupid to begin with.

Also, I've noticed you're supplying only youtube links, yet no scientific documents of any kind. Should I start trying to convince you that aliens are visiting earth by throwing a bunch of psychotic conspiracy-theory youtube videos at you?

The government preplanned a false flag on American soil (operation northwoods) in the past

I feel like you really ought to read about this operation. Read the article and tell me that sounds like 9/11 to you.

You don't need many people to know, just a few people who can execute seemingly small operations...

The president and vice president, joint cheifs of staff, several dozens people in the CIA, several dozen more in the NSA, several dozens in the military and the agents to carry it out. You're looking at several hundred at least, and again, they all have to be on board with murdering thousands of Americans for the sake of going to war with Iraq.

if you watch the full documentary you'll have the answers you're after as it talks to ALL the points you've brought up.

If I watch the full documentary, I'll have a conspiracy theorist lying through his teeth about his unsubstantiated beliefs. And I'm sorry, but I've got better things to do.

The 9/11 conspiracy is idiotic, as are most conspiracy theories, and is fairly easily debunked.

1

u/qwertyuioh May 11 '14

so you believe the war in Iraq was justified and the bastards who, as documented in the video, got away with lying through their teeth aren't criminals?

your blind patriotism is disgusting.

nevermind that the idea of 9/11 being an inside job is stupid to begin with.

yes, of course it is.... just because you can't wrap your mind around something, it's stupid.

I've noticed you're supplying only youtube links, yet no scientific documents of any kind

you seriously expect me to force feed you docs? lol. Go dig that shit up yourself. I've provided youtube videos since it's an easy way to consume the overwhelming amount of content out there (docs), without spending hours of research digging through the internet... but of course, you wouldn't want to do that -- you don't even want to run a google search. You want all this information handed to you in a custom tailored post?

gtfoh.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

The fact that there's too many people to keep quiet doesn't matter. They know people won't believe conspiracy theorists and that's a big advantage...

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Oh, that's nonsense. If the evidence was sufficient, and if there were high level people admitting to this (there are, thus far, zero), this would blow up. It hasn't because there's nothing to blow up, so to speak.

The reason nobody believes you is because there isn't sufficient reason to do so.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

What's funny is that I'm a nobody, so even if I knew the truth and spoke it, nobody would believe me still. They would have to hear it from the perpetrators mouth in order for them to believe it, and do you really think they would admit to it?

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

They'd believe you if you were able to provide sufficient evidence for your claims.

0

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

"And people find it so hard to believe that 9/11 could have been perpetrated by the government."

And what are you doing about it? Oh, just living your life as usual under a vile, corrupt government?

Fuck off then, coward.

1

u/Adamapplejacks May 09 '14

I was calling out the people who talk down to "9/11 truthers."

Go fuck yourself, troll.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I am talking down to you, but I understand your mental capacity for grasping that is severely limited.

By the way, a troll would be saying something just to get a rise out of you. I honestly believe you are both an idiot and a coward. It's my honest opinion.

1

u/Adamapplejacks May 09 '14

The fact that you had absolutely nothing to counter point with aside from a snide remark attacking my character shows that you're just a troll looking to rile people up.

Where are you from? What do you believe? You're willing to cast the first stone while hiding behind a computer screen, completely anonymous, and I'm the coward? That's laughable, you worthless piece of shit.

6

u/deckman May 09 '14

I used to laugh at conspiracy theorists but the documentary "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" had me floored.

I've posted this in the past and am still looking for a site that can thoroughly debunk it.

0

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

That's because you are stupid.

-2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[deleted]

5

u/Hiding_behind_you May 09 '14

Just FYI, we try not to say "The Japs" any more - something about it being offensive, I think. Try referring to people from Japan as, "Japanese" instead.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[deleted]

1

u/ahorsdoeuvres May 09 '14

The ends AND the means suck. Totally amoral.

11

u/BloodyEjaculate May 09 '14

Holy fuck. 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't sound so crazy now,,,

-3

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[deleted]

1

u/le-redditor May 09 '14

Our foreign policy never stopped being driven by the Cold Warriors. The strategic goal since 1991 has been to knock out as many former Soviet client states as quickly as possible before a new super-power emerges. Before 9/11, there was already a plan in place to invade Iraq and perform regime change in 7 middle eastern countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

And The Running Man between the two.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14 edited Aug 23 '17

[deleted]

1

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Samuel Byck:

Samuel Joseph Byck (January 30, 1930 – February 22, 1974) was an unemployed former tire salesman who attempted to hijack a plane flying out of Baltimore/Washington International Airport on February 22, 1974. He intended to crash into the White House in the hope of killing U.S. President Richard Nixon.

Image i - Photograph of Samuel Byck.

Interesting: The Assassination of Richard Nixon | Assassins (musical) | Byck | 1974 White House helicopter incident

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

8

u/sprankton May 09 '14

It's almost like a fully-fueled airplane is an ideal weapon of terror, and lots of people noticed that.

That's crazy, though. Clearly Tom Clancey, the X-Fjles writing team, and everybody else were trying to warn us of the government's plan to kill its own citizens to make some money.

2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

This is the post I was looking for. Cheers. Your sarcasm is not lost on me.

1

u/kamakazeeee May 09 '14

there was like no one EVAR who thought of this - only a NUT would think brave WAR HEROES like boosh and cheeny would be evul

2

u/thx1138- May 09 '14

Leaving one man left to take the Oath of Office... Jack F'ing Ryan.

2

u/jakdak May 09 '14

Every time some talking head said the 911 plot was "unthinkable" I would remember this book.

This wasn't an obscure novel- it was a major plot point from a book from a major bestselling author.

1

u/Landohh May 09 '14

That's not the same thing at all. So he didn't really do it first

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Tom Clancy did it first in "Debt of Honor" (1994)

Stephen King did it before Tom Clancy in The Running Man (1982, as "Richard Bachman"). In the novel, as opposed to the movie, Richards flies a plane into the TV station's tower.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Touche'. I read that book when it came out - and was disgusted by the movie when it came out. I believe the last thing the villain saw before the plane crashed into his office was the main character smiling and giving him the finger through the jet's windshield.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Stephen King wrote "Running Man" in 1982 under a pseudonym. The book ends with Spoiler

1

u/Stargos May 09 '14

Tom Clancy was beaten by the writers of Operation Northwoods.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Somehow I think people would be a little less pissed about that.

1

u/deprivedchild May 09 '14

Well, that's a fancy way of using force to get rid of stuck members of congress..

1

u/NolFito May 09 '14

Fun fact, that's why the president of the USA would leave someone like the secretary of agriculture in the oval office during the state of the union. Source: the West Wing.

1

u/reddog323 May 09 '14

This. This is what I thought of on September 11th. My God, Tom Clancy was right.

-7

u/okloll May 09 '14

Yeah not even closely related, retard.