9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[bradybaker]

Click Here. This has been out for quite a while...but I'm a little worried that most of you conspiracy theorists have never bothered to research the counterpoints to your favorite 9/11 tidbits. So. Check it. PS. I also find it extremely amusing that people who call the government a bunch of dimwitted, corrupt morons incapable of coordinating any kind of important project are the same people who support the myth that the same government was able to carry out the largest, most complex and secretive military operation ever...on US soil...with compliance of hundreds of individuals who haven't spoken up yet.

[Rav1]

So, what do you suggest? That the governement is corrupted or the society is so blind and allows the things that happen?

[Alric]

Well the biggest reason for all the theories is that all 3 buildings fall and they all look just like a controlled demolition. So theres really only three views on the subject. Either, you believe all buildings fall straight down like that, that no building would fall like that unless you plan it, or that some times it does and some times it don't and its a coincidence that all 3 fell exactly the same.

[Universal Mind]

Click Here. This has been out for quite a while...but I'm a little worried that most of you conspiracy theorists have never bothered to research the counterpoints to your favorite 9/11 tidbits. So. Check it. PS. I also find it extremely amusing that people who call the government a bunch of dimwitted, corrupt morons incapable of coordinating any kind of important project are the same people who support the myth that the same government was able to carry out the largest, most complex and secretive military operation ever...on US soil...with compliance of hundreds of individuals who haven't spoken up yet. [/b] 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. Have you seen the South Park about 9/11 conspiracy? It is hilarious. You should see it if you haven't already. Well the biggest reason for all the theories is that all 3 buildings fall and they all look just like a controlled demolition. So theres really only three views on the subject. Either, you believe all buildings fall straight down like that, that no building would fall like that unless you plan it, or that some times it does and some times it don't and its a coincidence that all 3 fell exactly the same. [/b] So they weren't really hit by airplanes? Or perhaps they were hit by airplanes, but only to create an illusion to distract everybody from the McVeigh style bombings? Wouldn't it have been easier to just make it a McVeigh style bombing without the airplane effect? Which of these two proposals makes more sense... 1. The people who crashed the 9/11 airplanes were jihadists who were willing to kill themselves and tons of innocents in the name of Islamofascism, a very common phenomenon. 2. The people who crashed the 9/11 airplanes were Bush lovers who were willing to kill themselves and tons of innocents in the name of a conspiracy they get absolutely nothing out of. ? Is this even subject to debate?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Nice article, Brady.

[Alric]

No one really believes the theory that no planes hit the tower. Anyone who says that is either a trouble maker or an idiot. Also how you said that question was totally biases. If I wanted to I could ask something the same way. Which makes more sense? 1. Some people living in a cave actually succeeded in a plan to hit the pentagon and both towers, which involved people who could barely fly a plane taking them over with boxcutters then flying them into a target miles away. And them doing it because they "hate freedom". Or 2. The most advanced government in the world figuring out a way to remotely fly a plane, which they already have the technology to do and then actually doing it so they can pass more laws to gain more power. Anyway its a pointless arguement. I am sure everyone has their mind made up by now on what happened and its unlikely that they are going to let the facts get in the way of what they believe.

[Slight]

... and by the time we can trust a true truth, no one cares no more ...

[Patrick]

OK brady, I'm sorry, but your website has done very little to convince me that 9/11 was not at least partially helped along by the government. Your site does clear up a couple of things, such as the supposed bomb strapped to the undercarriage of the second plane, and the white jet seen flying over flight 93's crash site. Yes, those are almost certainly stupid theories that have rightfully been dismissed, in my mind at least. But the fact still remains that the events of 9/11 are still extremely suspicious in nature, mostly with regards to the scrambling of jets, the buildings collapsing, and the pentagon. The evidence you've provided on this site is incomplete, and some very debateable.

[The Blue Meanie]

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.

[Bonsay]

I watched this one (pentagon). Ok I understand they were "debunked", but why aren't there any videos of the plane ? I'm no expert but some things don't make sense. Eaven if it was a plane, who can say that it was because Osama felt like it. We will probably find out the truth in 50-100 years

[bradybaker]

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. PS. Alric: that 'people living in caves' comment is one of the most ignorant and stereotypical 'American' comments I've ever heard. No wonder they hate you.

[Neruo]

As south park proves: The 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually a government conspiracy to make them look all-powerfull. I don't think 9/11 was planned by the government. I do think they eighter let it happen a bit, or did some things wrong to prevent it. Allso, planned or not, they Used it to their own benefit.

[Alric]

Yea they hate us, thats why they want to kill us. Even though there hasn't been a terrorist attack since then and they probably couldn't give a damn what the average US citizen does. All you really have to do is ask the question, "Who gains from it?". The terrorist sure don't gain from it. How does getting hunted down by the US help them? So if it doesn't help the terrorist, who does it help? The government, which gets more funding, more power, and more control over our every day lives. I really find this arguement irrelvent. Because it doesn't matter if the government had anything to do with it or not. The fact is, they took advantage of a horrible situation, and that is bad enough for me.

[Roller]

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.

[Neruo]

They didn't blow up the twin towers themselves, they could just have used a bomb in the first place. However they might have blown up building 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q It certainly looks like controlled demolition to experts. At least to some dutch one that was on tv some time ago in the netherlands.

[Alric]

Its not so much that it went straight down, but that it all went straight down at the same time. With the huge steel columns in the center the most likely thing I believe would happen is that the outside would collapse first. I mean, it makes sense the weakest point would collapse first, which is where the plane had hit. With a hit like that you would expect just part of it collapsing. Maybe the rest would come down after but thats not what happen. The entire building all went down at once. Its not even like it collapse on the side then a split second later the rest followed, it all went at once. Not only that but all three buildings fell like that. And building 7 is even more strange since it wasn't hit, plus its much longer, so the lenght of the entire building falling at once is really weird. Plus the flames of the fire wasn't all that hot. Well yea it was hot but we are talking huge steel beams here. There is even video from 9/11 showing people standing right in the big hole in the side of the building. How do you explain that if there was a fire strong enough to melt steel beams literally a floor below them?

[Universal Mind]

No one really believes the theory that no planes hit the tower. Anyone who says that is either a trouble maker or an idiot. Also how you said that question was totally biases. If I wanted to I could ask something the same way. Which makes more sense? 1. Some people living in a cave actually succeeded in a plan to hit the pentagon and both towers, which involved people who could barely fly a plane taking them over with boxcutters then flying them into a target miles away. And them doing it because they "hate freedom". Or 2. The most advanced government in the world figuring out a way to remotely fly a plane, which they already have the technology to do and then actually doing it so they can pass more laws to gain more power. Anyway its a pointless arguement. I am sure everyone has their mind made up by now on what happened and its unlikely that they are going to let the facts get in the way of what they believe. [/b] #1 is correct, except they weren't cave dwellers, except for the Al Qaeda leadership when they are in hiding. The hijackers came here and took flying lessons, so there is no mystery in the fact that they could fly planes. They could learn to fly planes in Saudi Arabia and other countries too, even if they did live in caves. Box cutters are all it takes to take over a cockpit and lock it. I see no holes in explanation #1. #2 is just insane. Do you have any idea how many people would have had to have been in on such a large scale conspiracy? The number of people who would have known that a huge remote control passenger jet is flying would have been gigantic. The owners and even maintenance workers of those jets would have known something was funny, the air traffic controllers of many airports plus the other airport personnel would have had to deal with the crazy fact that the pilots were either nonexistent, nonresponsive, or in a state of panic, the people at the airport would have seen something crazy going on in the cockpit, and the great many family members of victims on the jets would have to be lying about the cell phone conversations they had. This would have leaked all over the place and never even been pulled off in the first place. Besides, I thought most of you think Bush is an absolute idiot. By saying he pulled off this stuff, you are calling him a supergenius mastermind. Which is it?

[Hard as Nails]

................... wow. more America hating. Maybe the administrators could make up a whole new section where all the America haters can get together and have America hating orgys together. . It sure would be one BIG orgy. I can see where you are coming from, though (about the frames falling at the same time). We do not know this for sure, however. The support structures (SS (nothing to do with Nazis)) nearest to the explosion of the planes would have fallen first, due not only to meting, but structural damage and breaking due to a plane hitting it. But when those collapse, it puts more stress and weight on the remaining SS, causing them to break. Considering the steel frames were extremely hot and ready to collapse anyway, this process could have taken milli-seconds. Think about it. Maybe it wasnt the actual "melting" that brought the towers down. 1. Initial structural damage from the plane hitting caused instability, which makes THOSE structures collapse (heat may have also been a factor here) 2. The extremely high temperature of the steel frames causes them to be less stable, but not melted. 3. The most damaged structural frames (from the plane) break due to the weight of the building (this is why the second tower fell first (the plane hit lower=more weight on top of it)). All of a sudden TONS AND TONS of weight then transfers itself to the remaining frames, which are already unstable. 4. Collapse There. I solved 9/11. ..............atleast it makes sense, right? by the way, i consider myself a conservative libretarian, or a "south park" republican. but i dont consider bush to be that smart. ....................i think we need McCain to be president.

[The Blue Meanie]

Hard as Nails, could you please stop labelling everything you disagree with as "America Hating"? It's kind of annoying. Secondly: I think that ANY sane person would not dispute for a MOMENT that the world trade towers, built out of glass and steel, collapsed because two almost fully-fueled 747's smashed into them, causing a burning inferno of jet fuel and oxygen which literally MELTED parts of the building. Like thousands, likely HUNDREDS of thousands if not millions around the globe, I watched as the second plane crashed into the building. LIVE, I believe. My mum woke me up in the morning at breakfast when she switched on to CNN and saw that the first plane had crashed. Any conspiracy theory that says that the world trade towers didn't collapse because of the planes, but was instead a big elaborate conspiracy with detonaters in the buolding, or WHATEVER... is out of their minds. HOWEVER. I don't neccessarily discount the veracity of a conspiracy theory that proposes that the US administration knew about the impending attack and did nothing to stop it. BUT I think it unlikely the US knew of the nature or scale of the attack. I'm not saying I BELIEVE such a conspiract theory, but, I do admit that I find it to be a possibility.

[Gwendolyn]

Yeah, the US probably knew about the attack beforehand, or at least knew of the potential for an attack, and chose to ignore the evidence, or use that as a diversion from the actual Gov. issues...However, everyone knows the fucking towers were hit, and crumpled under impact and were destroyed as a result. Why is that part hard to believe?

[Hard as Nails]

ok. but people who say my government would kill 3000 of its own civilians, as well as commit genocide on the middle east are America haters. They know it, you know it, and i know it. I suppose i will just call them "persons with political differences" just as a point, werent you telling me a couple of posts ago to "deal with it"? This shark guy's picture annoys me, but you were PRO keeping the picture there. You wanting me to change my form of expression contradicts your previous statement, so I guess we are both hypocrits. anyway. Yea, my government may have heard second or third hand that the terrorists were planning something big. It is very easy for us to stand back now and say "they should have done this" or "we should have taken these measures". After we see the outcome, it is easy for us to judge. The government has the difficult job of making decisions before bad things happen rather than after. What should they have done? Close down every airport in the world "until further notice". If we raised our terror level to red every time we heard terrorist chatter about attacks, we would never be at peace. We cannot live in constant fear. That is what terrorists want. So, my question to you is what should my government have done? Remember, you are supposed to be looking at this from a perspective BEFORE the attacks. Before we got any information about Al Quaeda's involvement. what should have been done?

[The Blue Meanie]

ok. but people who say my government would kill 3000 of its own civilians, as well as commit genocide on the middle east are America haters. They know it, you know it, and i know it. [/b] Argh, there you go again. They're not "America Haters", they're just nuts, is all. Anyway, hating and mistrusting the american government isn;'t the same as hating AMERICA. A country is more than its government... at least, I sure hope so, else we're all knee-deep in trouble. just as a point, werent you telling me a couple of posts ago to "deal with it"? This shark guy's picture annoys me, but you were PRO keeping the picture there. You wanting me to change my form of expression contradicts your previous statement, so I guess we are both hypocrits. [/b] The "deal with it" was in another thread. I'm not offended by you saying "America Haters", and to be honest, if you want to keep using it, go ahead. All I was saying, is that it's kind of annoying. It's like calling people "poo-poo heads". I'd have the same reaction. It's just kind of an annoying label that doesn't really help anything. So, my question to you is what should my government have done? Remember, you are supposed to be looking at this from a perspective BEFORE the attacks. Before we got any information about Al Quaeda's involvement. what should have been done? [/b] Again, I'm not saying I BELIEVE this conspiracy theory. BUT. I think it's common knowledge that the American Govt. had some advance warning of an impending terrorist attack. Now, if that were ALL, then SURE, I agree. America can't close everything down every time they have a threat. THAT situatuion would not be a conspiracy, you're completely right. But, that wasn't the "conspiracy theory" I was giving. The Conspiracy Theory I was putting forward (but not that I necessarily believe) was that the Govt. had more specific knowledge of the impedning attack to the extent that they KNEW it was going to happen, and they had enough info to stop it had they wished too, without closing everything down. But, they let it go ahead, perhaps unaware of the SCALE of the impending attack, to generate a pretext which the administration could then use to declare war on a middle-eastern country. Now, I'm not saying I BELIEVE that, but I;m not saying I think it's crap, either. It's a possibility, and is a "Conspiracy theory" with more sense than the OBVIOUSLY stupid one about the trade towers being a faked-up hoax.

[Hard as Nails]

ohhhh!! The blue meanie, i wasnt refering directly to you in my last post, except when i adressed you. The truth is that if my government knew about the attacks beforehand, they would NEVER let it out. I believe we will always be out in the blue on the 9/11 subject. It certainly is possible. I am not one of the conspiracists that believe "THE GOV. CONTROLLS EVERYTHING" But they do know a lot more than we do. and also, i do not like being a hypocrit. I asked shark to change his ways, just as you did to me. From now on, i will only refer to people who hate America as America-haters (god, that sounded stupid as hell). That way, no generalizations are made.

[Alric]

First off the buildings where actually designed to take multiple plane crashes into them and still stand. Now does that mean it works? No but its something to think about. Secondly I don't remeber anyone saying Bush did it. Anyone who believes the government begins with and ends with Bush is a moron. We have a HUGE government. If you think Bush is a moron, the most logical answer is they did it without him even knowing because he would never figure it out. Anyway it really wouldn't take that many people to plan something like that. If you know anything about people, you know most don't care about what happens around them at work, they wouldn't notice. You don't schedule a plane to be checked out, and maybe 1 person at the airport would notice. Everyone else has other things to worry about. As for acting like the government would do no wrong, talk about naive. History is full of events where governments has harmed their own citizens. Yes even in the US, the government has killed their own citizens. Unlike 9/11 where you may have doubts, there are other cases that are well known as fact and can be outright proven. I really don't care what you think about 9/11 but anyone who uses the reason "the government wouldn't harm their own people" is totally clueless. That should never be an acceptable argument.

[Hard as Nails]

Very true. Other high-ranking gov. officials coudl have gone behind Bush's back. Heres a theory, but i dont even think this is remotely possible. 1. The government tries to get Clinton to carry out this little plan. He refuses 2. The gov. learns not to go directly to the president, so they go behind his back 3. BOOOOMM!!!