Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

"You hate america" is an arguement from people who can't find a logical way to argue with you. The fact is government do stupid and some times even evil crap all the time, and they should never be blindly trusted. People forget that dictators are normally voted into office and people normally like them, at first. Saddam was really the "president" of iraq. If you were an iraqi and you hated saddam does that mean you hated iraq? Of course not.

Heck our government is based on the fact that the people who made america did not trust the government. Why is there 3 branches of government? Because they knew the government would try to gain power over the people and they thought the 3 would keep each other in check. Why do we have a bill of rights? People thought if we didn't the government would take our rights away.

How did we go from a country of people who knew the government would cheat them if given the chance to a country where we accept it as a given that the government will never do us wrong? Is it that our government has gotten better and more trustworthy over the years? Or has everyone just become extreamly naive?

I think people have just gotten to emotionally and dramatically charged. I blame hollywood and their movies (NOT because they are liberal). Atleast in America, we are obsessed with drama. It is a part of our daily lives. That is why people come up with these fascinating conspiracy stories about everything from 9/11 to Katrina. To create drama. That is what the news does. I hate it, and i wish we could have a reliable information source. But that will never happen.

Originally Posted by Hard

1. The government tries to get Clinton to carry out this little plan. He refuses
[/b]

Ehhhh... Clinton?

I watched this show about all of this and the one main thing that got me to believe it MAY be a conspiracy theoy is because they showed the very bottom of the frames that go straight up the bulidings and they looked like this \ / then they showewd a actual building that was demolished and the central frames looked like this \ / they said that to get that percise angles they put this like wire bomb in the shape of the angle to make the buildings fall straight down. Also if you watch the towers closely right before they fall you see an explosion at teh base of the buliding...

Ok, now that I’ve finally had some more time to go over the text of the article and some of the replies, I’ll bring up a few things, starting with the fact that “debunked” is a very strong word. It implies being “proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Any report riddled with the words “possible explanation” and “still undergoing investigation” is not a report depicting something that has been “debunked.”
Just some food for thought.

Originally Posted by Universal

That is such a good point! I agree with you so much on that. The Bush haters switch back and forth between calling him an absolute imbecile and calling him what amounts to the greatest conspiracy genius in history. He can't be both.
[/b]

You’re implying that everyone that believes there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 (call them ‘Bush-haters’ or ‘inquisitive minds’, whatever you feel most comfortable with) believes that Bush is the mastermind behind said conspiracy.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Universal

This "debunking" of conspiracy theories commits the Straw Man fallacy.

You've taken a lucdicrous, OBVIOUSLY stupid version of a conspiracy, and by pointing out the obvious holes, purport to have "debunked" 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I believe, for my own part, that 9/11 may have been a kind of "conspiracy". But, here is the version I would be inclined to believe:

Elements within the American administration were aware of an impending terrorist attack on the united states.
They were aware that the attack would be prominant and get a lot of publicity.
For a combination of reasons, including the desire to generate a pretext for a future war, elements within the American administration talked down the possibility of attack to those beneath them and prevented adequate "follow-up".
These elements, however, were not aware of the nature or full scale of the attack, though to what extent I am unsure.

Now, I anticipate that this theory will never be proven, and that it is extremely difficult to disprove such theories, because of the nature of a "conspiracy theory" - it entails the idea that the conspiracy will be hidden and attempts made to cover it up.

But, I believe there's a good deal of sense behind the theory. I'm not saying I believe it outright, but just that this would be a much more credible version of a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
[/b]

Well said.

Originally Posted by Universal

Question: If the Government was planning on killing thousands of innocents anyways...why the hell would they care if the buildings fell straight down?!

If they're smart enough to mastermind this incredibly complex operation...you'd think they'd be smart enough to make the buildings fall in a more 'natural' way.
[/b]

As much as you may want to say I’m pulling bullshit arguments out of my ass, take note that I’m only presenting possibilities to consider. Take them as you want:

1) The cleanup (which was completely Rushed, before a proper investigation could be done) would have been a thousand times harder if the buildings had fallen in a more ‘natural’ way.

2) The fact that the government leased out space for a “post” on one of the central floors in Tower 7 (coincidentally?) just before the attacks leaves open the possibility that the buildings falling in a more ‘natural’ way might have jeopardized the safety of those in said post.

3) I’m not familiar with the area around the towers but, why sacrifice more surrounding (possibly capitalistically important?) buildings than is necessary to complete the objective, which was, as it seems, to bring down the twin towers?

4) I’m confused. Of all the theories why the government “wouldn’t” be involved in something like this, why would their “inability to pull it off” even be an argument? I doubt we'd have just about the strongest, most capable, military on the planet if our government, as a whole, is a bunch of sniveling idiots. That particular argument doesn’t even make sense, to me.

Originally Posted by Universal

About the whole thing of the buildings falling straight down... from what I understand their actual collapse had nothing to do with the force of the planes hitting them. Sure, the planes were travelling pretty fast, but they're made out of pretty flimsy material. It was the heat from the concentrated fires that weakened the supports of the building enough for the weight of the building above the impact sites to collapse down. I don't see any reason for the buildings to have fallen sideways.

The difficulty about conspiracy theories is that they're impossible to prove wrong, because by their very nature they are a 'cover up'. They set out from the start to look for strange facts about any major event or disaster, and then claim that the face interpretation of the event is unlikely. Instead, much more dramatic theories are postulated which are by all means much more unlikely than the original turn of events. They're a product of the human fascination with mystery. Mostly they're loaded with a grab-bag of strange events, ready to throw at anyone questioning the theory. That's just my view on conspiracies in general - I can't say I know much about the different 9/11 theories, although I've heard the one about the Pentagon crash being a missile etc.

[/b]

As far as the buildings falling: I’ve gone over the vids more times than I’d care to admit and I feel much more comfortable with the notion they fell naturally (though I’m definitely Not ruling out demolition on my list of possibilities.) There was a lot of weight on top of those impact points and even the debris clouds at the epicenters of the falling towers, as they came down, were almost unfathomably large. Who knows what was going on with the support within those clouds? It could be legit. The pancaking concept is very possible (and probably most likely) as an explanation for the puffs of smoke jetting out of the windows, in succession, as the buildings fell. No problem with that. We can’t, though, ignore a few facts:

1) No steel enforced structure has ever collapsed from fire. Ever. Not even that one overseas (Japan I think? Forgot. I’ll look it up later.) that burned for over a dozen hours straight.
2) Three of them came down within hours of each other. One of them having not even been hit by a plane. (They gave a nice, blanket, speculative answer for that, but one that can hardly, with any sort of seriousness, be classified as "debunking the theory")
3) The second tower was hit off-center, yet the collapse was completely level and uniform.
4) The contractors themselves stated that a plane hitting the twin towers would be about the equivalent of someone punching a hole in a screen door with a pencil. True, they could have miscalculated in the design, but it’s, again, something to consider.

On conspiracy theories, in general:
I believe that anyone expressing an automatic disbelief in a claim because it can be classified as a “conspiracy theory” has a bit of a self-defeating argument as no conspiracy theory can be labeled, by default, as false, because of it’s nature as a “conspiracy theory.” Too many “conspiracy theories” have evolved into proven scandals by people who refused to lie down and write them off as “conspiracy theories” for anyone to try to stereotype “conspiracy theories,” in general, as “this-and-that.”
Not only do we have subjects like Operation Northwoods and the, more recent, proposal (never implemented, as far as I know) to blow up a decoy UN jet over Iran and blame it on them, as a pretext for war, to go by, but also smaller scale “truth-bending” such as the “subtle” efforts to link Saudi Arabia to 9/11 in order to rally the American people toward an invasion and the formation of law, by Bush to implement more “effective means of interrogation” for terror suspects, while telling the American people over and over that America does not torture. Look up torture, then look up some of the unclassified (to say nothing of the secretive) methods now acceptable for interrogation, and judge for yourself.

Originally Posted by Universal

There is no fluctuation among anyone who likes and dislike bush, please do not get it confused. If the polls has dropped in favor of him to no longer favorable for decision making, it's from confused Republics who can't make up their mind. "Oh I used to like him, I take back what I said, I no longer want to be his friend". There is a shear difference in loving a country and loving someone who governs a country. I love this country I hate "Big Fat Ass Wigs" in D.C. stripping this country and it's people of all that can be good.
[/b]

Exactly.

There was no explosion at the base. The building fell by one floor falling ontop of another from the top to the bottom, starting at the level where the plane hit. That is indisputable. If there was an explosion at the bottom, the 2nd floor would crush the 1st, the 3rd would crush the 2nd, and so on. If you watch the videos of the collapses, you will see the collapses start at the level where the plane hit (about floor 80 on the second tower) Really, its just simple physics that disprove this theory of an explosion at the base.

If there is an explosion on some video, it could have easily been photo shopped in. Right now i could make a picture of Osama holding an American flag in the middle of central park. That doesnt mean it's real.

Dont get me wrong, i am not being agressive toward you. If you saw an explosion then you saw an explosion. I am not saying otherwise. I am just saying that all evidence says contrary to that theory.

Have you ever watched video of how they blow up buildings? Thats exactly how they fall. Especially building 7. Building 7 looks like the bottom is pulled out and drops straight down. I still say thats one of the biggest things in support of it. It really is strange what happened, and it didn't even get hit.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You’re implying that everyone that believes there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 (call them ‘Bush-haters’ or ‘inquisitive minds’, whatever you feel most comfortable with) believes that Bush is the mastermind behind said conspiracy.

Incorrect.
[/b]

The inividuals who are both Bush haters and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have in 100% of the cases I have seen claimed, "Bush was behind 9/11." I have come across that exact sentence zillions of times. So far, everybody I have heard make the claim thinks Bush staged 9/11 himself to have an excuse to go to war in Iraq and steal oil. I have yet to see anybody express a belief in 9/11 conspiracy and not hate Bush, so that means that the "Bush was behind 9/11" mantra is the only version of the conspiracy I have come across yet. I haven't heard anything like, "The Democrats were behind 9/11." If anybody here wants to claim something like that, please be the first I have seen.

Originally Posted by dropout14

Also if you watch the towers closely right before they fall you see an explosion at teh base of the buliding...
[/b]

What what what???? Can you post this? If you can show it, you will really have my attention.

the democrats caused 9/11.

there....i said it.

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.

and, alric, no. The buildings did not fall from the bottom. Just watch the videos.

I have seen a lot of people who think Bush is just a puppet and believe that it would have happened with or without him.

Originally Posted by Hard

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.
[/b]

You mean except for the dozens of people who have said they heard explosions? Yes if you discount the story of the people who where there, that said there was explosions, there are no reports of explosions.

the democrats caused 9/11.

there....i said it.

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.

and, alric, no. The buildings did not fall from the bottom. Just watch the videos.

[/quote]What what what???? Can you post this? If you can show it, you will really have my attention.[quote]

there you go
BTW at Min 8:30 is where you should watch thats when it gets good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd1-Dp_-7WI...ted&search=

Originally Posted by Universal

The inividuals who are both Bush haters and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have in 100% of the cases I have seen claimed, "Bush was behind 9/11." I have come across that exact sentence zillions of times. So far, everybody I have heard make the claim thinks Bush staged 9/11 himself to have an excuse to go to war in Iraq and steal oil. I have yet to see anybody express a belief in 9/11 conspiracy and not hate Bush, so that means that the "Bush was behind 9/11" mantra is the only version of the conspiracy I have come across yet. I haven't heard anything like, "The Democrats were behind 9/11." If anybody here wants to claim something like that, please be the first I have seen.
[/b]

How about if I were to say "the Republicans may have caused 9/11?"
Is that good enough?

I'm not a Bush fan, by any means. (if you want to throw the blanket of 'Bush Hater' over me, that's your prerogative) Maybe he means well, in his ignorance, maybe he doesn't. 9/11 could have been staged as a pretext to carry out a, truely well-intentioned, "liberation of the middle east" beginning with Iraq, as far as I know. It's a possibility, but it's neither here nor there. My point is that (though I'm not excluding him), if there is a conspiracy behind 9/11, I believe that it has less to do with Bush than with his more military advisors (possibly with a little help in the conceptional phase, by his father.) Though it doesn't mean Bush wasn't informed.

So I'd be proud to be recognized as a deviation from your 100% statistic.

I don't know if this has been posted already, etc, but it gives a rather strong, if not amateur documentary on why, and with what logic the 9/11 and UK bombings could have been carried out with. I wouldnt believe everything stated, but I would believe the obviously factual, non-misinterpretable content:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dYWP9AOGBo

Originally Posted by Hard

the democrats caused 9/11.

there....i said it.

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.

and, alric, no. The buildings did not fall from the bottom. Just watch the videos.
[/b]

Wow, way to put forward your argument in an objective, non-biased, balanced and politically correct way. Traumatised people see what they want to see, it's no real evidence for or against. The videos may not show any visible explosions, but we live in an age where 'explosions' arent just nitroglycerin-fuelled infernos

Consider the following, 9/11 conspirators:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

~

Originally Posted by O

Consider the following, 9/11 conspirators:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

~
[/b]

Again, thats just the one stupid conspiracy theory. It doesn't instantly disprove all conspiracy theories -.-

Originally Posted by O

Consider the following, 9/11 conspirators:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

~
[/b]

Hehe. That was pretty funny. A whooole lot of rhetoric, but funny, nonetheless.
Now to play a little more Devil’s Advocate!

The fact that this man is alive…
[/b]

So basically what the author is saying is that, should homeboy and his friends/family/etc. end up at the bottom of a river, somewhere, after releasing a video that talks about the government having a hand in what is, allegedly, one of the (if not the) biggest conspiracies of all time, the public at large would be dumb enough to say “Wow, what a coincidence. What are the odds that this guy, and everyone he’s close to, would just up and die, within a year or so after posting a video accusing the government of killing thousands of Americans? Damn, it must suck to be that unlucky.”
Are you kidding me?
The best thing the government has going for them, hypotheticizing (– is that even a word?) that the conspiracy did happen, is that so many people think the idea is absolutely ludicrous. The only thing (ok, not the Only thing) that would be more idiotic than letting the person who sets out to prove something that a majority of the people would never believe, do so, would be to bring attention to yourself by silencing said whistleblower by killing him, his family and all of his friends.
That’s what you call “shooting yourself in the foot.”
The present “conspiracy theorist banter,” easily suppressed by ridicule and dissent, would become a virtual Shit-Storm of probes into why this whistleblower’s life ended in such coincidence. The fact that the author didn’t even take this into consideration raises a red flag, to me. (not to mention his tactical use of "provoking conformity through fear of intellectual persecution," by throwing over-the-top insults into every sentence. A dissenter's best friend. )

Also, by the author’s logic, the government would have known, within minutes, that this website was posted, and it would have been taken down before it had a chance to reach the eye of the public.
So basically, what the he is saying is that all of the pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, terrorists, wtf-evers, that broadcast their lifestyles, in some way, over the internet are being Allowed to go on about their twisted business because, if the government wanted to, they could have them all tracked down and located within minutes because the government monitors all internet communications. Seems pretty sadistic of government, if you ask me, to allow these people to go unpunished, like that, for so long.
I’m assuming that it would take a little longer than “within minutes” for the government to sift through the infinite amounts of internet data transferred every day (even using the “keywords” methods that they are using now) to weed out that specific site, not to mention the probably hundreds of thousands like it, and shut it down. By the time they did that, it would have likely reached the eyes of so many people that shutting down the site would do nothing more than arouse further suspicion, for the same reason stated above, and give a specter of credibility to what is now the “mindless zealotry” of the belief of something being covered-up, no?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

not to mention his tactical use of "provoking conformity through fear of intellectual persecution," by throwing over-the-top insults into every sentence. A dissenter's best friend.
[/b]

You summed up everything I thought there!

Not only this, but his references are fire-and-brimstone skeptics, hypocritically using exactly the same methods as the documentaries to apparently 'debunk' these myths with their 'FACT'-'CLAIM'-'FACT', ad nausiam. On top of this, a government agency giving all this scientific evidence--none of which is available to be looked at by the reader--purely from some scraps of steel from the crash and studying of video evidence. To be honest, their explanations seem as equally unlikely as the extremist theory they're supposedly debunking.

Not much really to add here, except to say that if 9/11 were in fact an inside job, theories such as "the pod" on the 757 or the "no plane at the pentagon" would in fact be encouraged by the conspirators, to discredit all theories and make the ignorant public dismiss all matters of legitimate consideration. Of course there was a plane at the pentagon; countless people saw it, but to turn around and not even question all of the odd occurences of that day is just mindless. No offense to anyone intended.

I have no answers and draw no conclusions, however I DO acknowledge that something is just not right about what we all saw that day.

Originally Posted by Never

Not much really to add here, except to say that if 9/11 were in fact an inside job, theories such as "the pod" on the 757 or the "no plane at the pentagon" would in fact be encouraged by the conspirators, to discredit all theories and make the ignorant public dismiss all matters of legitimate consideration. Of course there was a plane at the pentagon; countless people saw it, but to turn around and not even question all of the odd occurences of that day is just mindless. No offense to anyone intended.

I have no answers and draw no conclusions, however I DO acknowledge that something is just not right about what we all saw that day.
[/b]

Agreed

Im not going to delve into entire theories
or I'm going to say is
Lets examine who benifitted form 9/11
what about Mr Bin Laden and his motely crew
I wou;d say the Taliban have suffered greatly since 9/11

Lets see whose benifitted
well without 9/11 there would never have been a defense budget of world conquest of proportions
so aha we find, that the arms industry benifits here and therefore the Maerican economoy and its "free market"
without 9/11 there would enver have been a war on Iraq, Mr Bush would not ahve had the backing of his own people
so there again we see the US economoy benefits
now who else beneifits?
Lets see, whose a middle eastern country, frirendly with the US, very friendly and felt threatend by MR Hussain

aha, I think I know, could it be the Zionists

Could it be the State of Israel! (which I may just open a thread on)

so you see America benfits, (oil, & arms indsutry) and so does Israel, removes a regional competetior and a great threat

Mr Hussain you see was an ardent anti-Zionist

I dont think Bush did it, well I think he knew it was going to happen, but come on, a man who would b better fitted as a zoo animal than the American President pull off somethng to that scale,

No, we must look to the geniuses, the cleverest people on this Earth
the zionists - Einstien himslef was one

No, the war in Iraq is about sand. Haley Barbour is the Governor of Mississippi, and he used to be the leader of the Republican National Committee. He is a very good friend of G.W. Bush. Mississippi has Biloxi Beach, the world's largest shipped in sand beach. And what do Iraq and Afghanistan have?

And what state has the greatest amount of beach tourism? Florida. Who is the Governor of that state? Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother! Not only is there an ocean of sand in the Middle East. It is also a jackpot of towels. I think Barbour and the Bush's are up to no good. They don't pass the smell test.

Originally Posted by Universal

No, the war in Iraq is about sand. Haley Barbour is the Governor of Mississippi, and he used to be the leader of the Republican National Committee. He is a very good friend of G.W. Bush. Mississippi has Biloxi Beach, the world's largest shipped in sand beach. And what do Iraq and Afghanistan have?

And what state has the greatest amount of beach tourism? Florida. Who is the Governor of that state? Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother! Not only is there an ocean of sand in the Middle East. It is also a jackpot of towels. I think Barbour and the Bush's are up to no good. They don't pass the smell test.[/b]

LOL. Though I totally disagree with you over the reasons for the Iraq "War", and though I do still entertain the POBBILITY of some sort of conspiracy surrounding Sept11...

That WAS funny.