Beautiful, beautiful post.

Too late I already proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that Dag was behind the whole thing.

I shall now sum up the following arguments as a whole from the now angered conspiracy theorists:
"You people and your 'logic'. HA! Who needs logic, I have weak unsupported anomalies that prove more then reason or common sense ever will. Bush was behind it all! I give the president credit to that much power because I have such little understanding of how my own country's system of government works! I believe that someone with power has to be responsible, because it destroys my precious little world to think that ordinary people can be capable of such atrocities."

after the alien conspiracy theories of the 90s people needed to latch onto something. By now, I don't know if there's many 9/11 conspiracy nuts around, but if there are, they're a bit behind the times.

I guess its a plausible story here, key word plausible.... seems like another Reichstag to me... Psh and as if you could find evidence to prove any explosion was deliberate, you think with an operation like that they would leave any evidence? Please...
Not saying it was orchestrated by the U.S. gov, but It seems obvious they know a lot more than they are saying.

Cui bono? Thetans.

In order to achieve a successful a conspiracy, it should be relatively simple to pull off, involve as few people as possible and should have some obvious point. This rules out most of the current (controlled demolition, missiles into the Pentagon) theories on 911.

If there is a conspiracy in this whole thing, it's that the people at the top learned about the attack in advance (Condi and her PDB) and allowed it to happen, hoping to capitalize on the public outrage and use it to wage war on Iraq (as noted in the PNAC manifesto). If this was indeed the plan, it worked like a charm.

you've got to agree - this is a biased report.

please don't tar all people that doubt the official story with the same brush.
if anything questioning a government that's well known for it's lies means you've got your eyes open.

the research editor is strongly against the idea that the US government knew anything about it that he's closing himself off from the possibility :

"whoever weaves the craziest tale wins" no, that isn't what happens.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
If there is a conspiracy in this whole thing, it's that the people at the top learned about the attack in advance (Condi and her PDB) and allowed it to happen, hoping to capitalize on the public outrage and use it to wage war on Iraq (as noted in the PNAC manifesto). If this was indeed the plan, it worked like a charm.


couldn't agree more.
it would give them an excuse to go after the oil, how convenient...

I like conspiracy theories but take them with a grain of salt. It's fun to see SOME of the things that people come up with.

That being said: I will probably never be convinced that 9/11 was a conspiracy but I don't think I'll never be convinced, that it wasn't.

if contradicting evidence surfaces you probably would.

there's another point that i think people would be foolish to ignore -
all videos confiscated of the pentagon being hit, and also, all pictures of flight 93. why?
if you weren't the least-bit suspicious you've been conditioned beyond help.
admittedly, saying it's an inside job is a paranoid hypothesis which has no evidence, but that's not what a lot of people are saying!

I think it is certainly possibly that flight 93 was shot down. Shooting it down over an unpopulated area would certainly preferable to having it crash into a building.

The pictures and video (@ 5:45) of the other side of building 7 show that it was a freaking mess... that was always enough to convince me of what happened with building 7.

You see video the good side and you see if fall so neatly down into its footprint and its like, "hmm...", but just a little more info (pictures of the other sides) and its pretty obvious what happened.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
it would give them an excuse to go after the oil, how convenient...


O RLY? Then please explain to me why oil is still at an all time high and there isn't one "Bush Oil Co." pump in Iraq.

are you suugesting that they didn't go after the oil they went to spread democracy?

it's like what happened in iran a few decades ago, they shove someone else in power that will be more compliant with america's needs.
there's 30 trillion dollars worth of oil in iraq, it's worth the war for them even if the american government just gets a fraction of that.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0D09B919-D28A-4CC4-A79F-0EE500239225.htm

oil's at an all time high because there's more demand and more oil pumps than ever. you must have seen the news that we'll have none left at this rate in just a few decades. them going for the oil is common knowledge (except for americans).
there may also be other small reasons why the US went to go and mess with iraq but oil is the main one.

Common knowledge? No. There are no facts to support that. There may be facts that suggest it, but not prove it.

More like a common conception.

There are no facts. All they have at most are vague circumstantial evidences. If youre a leftist or even an anarchist, then you will of course see facts in those things simply because it might help you when enough people believe such bullshit. But that doesnt have to do anything with the truth.
Actually a lot of their so called facts are ripped out of context, some photos are made unclear on purpose so you cant clearly see whats it about, 1 or 2 witnesses that saw a missile are taken more seriously than the other hundreds that saw the planes clearly, facts that prove the exact opposite are simply being left out, etc, etc, etc.
Its unbelievable how far people will go to "prove" their fantasies. To me in some cases its pure agitation. Of course, as most of the time, these conspiracy theories have a lot of political reason behind them. People want to get rid of the government, want a completely different system (you will be surprised how many socialists believe in these CTs) and so forth.

Yes, you can believe all that stuff. Its your right. But in the end you would be no better than the people hundreds of years ago who believed in witches and used that term to their benefit.

Yes, CTs are entertaining as fiction in stories and movies. But when people start to reflect them on the reality, things can get extremely dangerous. In the past many wars were fought because of misinformation. Think about it - from both sides.

Bush and Co assumed everything would work smoothly in Iraq, the goverment would be defeated, democracy would suddenly sprout through, massive contracts for reconstruction and oil exploration would be signed and everyone is happy.

That plan went south of course.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
it would give them an excuse to go after the oil, how convenient...


It is all about the oil.

Q. How do you kill a conspiracy theory?
A. Tell the truth.

Something we still don't have after all these years.

Dumb reporter though "pan in!". She obviously doesn't know one end of a camera from the other.

Regarding the couple of comments about whether the war in Iraq was about oil. 9/11 gave exactly what the PNAC report was looking for (and spelled out in their report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”) to mobilize public outrage and direct it towards a military invasion of the Middle East. “Crossing the Rubicon” is an investigation that creates a nice picture for the motives of certain people to be involved in 9/11. But aside from those questions, there is one question that many people think they already know the answer to:

Is the Iraq war is a failure?

Whether something is a failure or a success depends on your goals.

If the goal was to bring democracy to a random nation (i.e. nothing to do with reasons given for the war) in the Middle East, then Iraq is a disaster. Just like Cheney told the press it would be when discussing why the previous President Bush's (Bush I, for skimmers) administration didn't overthrown Saddam the first time. So what changed for Cheney between that time and when the current President Bush (Bush II) invaded Iraq? Some hidden knowledge about a region that has been unstable for a thousand plus years? Or perhaps different goals?

Now if the goal was oil-centric, then Iraq is easily a success. Under the draft that the US gave Iraq for its constitution, the Iraq National Oil Company would control 17 of the 80 current oil fields. Foreign corporations would control the other 63 oil fields AND any future finds for the next 30 years. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

Here's a quote from Jim Holt's book, "It's the Oil, Stupid."

**** BEGIN QUOTE ****
The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards 'nation-building' has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades - a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics - dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final 'surge' that has hastened internal migration - could scarcely have been more effective. The costs - a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) - are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco, it is a resounding success.
**** END QUOTE ****


Also are two videos to add a counterpoint about WTC7 for this sift (please read post below also):
http://www.stage6.com/LoneWolf/video/2201611/9/11-WTC7
http://www.stage6.com/LoneWolf/video/2201336/9/11-Official-Pancake-Theory-Debunked

Look, I've keep my mouth shut the whole time, but I think I will open it now.

^ those segments are not balanced. If you want to call this one unbalanced, fine, but if you say those are fare and balanced you must be joking, my babies.

If there was a conspiracy why bother with the planes? Think about how risky that is. What a huge chance of failure it has. Why not just blow up the buildings from the inside and say the terrorists did it, instead of fly planes into the buildings, then blowing them up from the inside "secretly" and then saying the terrorists did it. What if one of the planes missed? Being off a millimeter with a plane that size would send you an immediate mile off course. Think about all the people that would have to be involved. Every one of them would have to be psychopaths to let something like that happen. I’ll admit that Washington is a greedy bunch, but there isn't enough money in the world to keep all those people quiet.

Steve Jones may be a physicist but that doesn't mean he knows crap about structural design. But you know who does: I do. His postulations are beautiful garbage and his blathering exemplify his ignorance on buildings. I guess he was relived of duty after he said this and that, but, really, in the real world, you only get fired if you're an asshole. You can do a horrible job, say things that disagree with everything your institution stands for, but you'll only get the boot if you're a jerk. Ask anyone who's held a real job. He didn't get fired because of what he said about 911, he got put on relief because they already wanted to get ride of him and his bantering was the excuse.

Where were the engines? Inside the building. Why weren’t the wings there? Because a plane's wings are full of jet fuel and a 600 mile per hour impact would makes them EXPLODE. Why did the windows blow out: look up I.M Pei and get a lesson on air pressure. Passports planted: I'll buy it. What better way to direct attention. No video of the pentagon crash has come to light: that's fishy too, but, on the other hand, what would be the point? If you're going to crash a plane into the towers to incite public upheaval, why bother sending one to the pentagon, or why bother sending a missile instead of a real plane. I mean think of it: send planes, but then stop one of them, kill everyone on it, destroy the plane, then send a missile in its place? They hid the video because it was a knee jerk reaction and they didn't know what to do. They were scared. And they won’t release it now because it would prove nothing; let those people die in peace. Why would make it all so convoluted? Why leave so many loose threads? If they were going to fake something, it wouldn't be this easy to accumulate even this faux evidence.

The only public official who has said 9/11 was purposeful was the former president of Italy who has a serious history of mental illness and has his own conspiracy theory about being schizophrenic.

I think they did want to go back to the middle east. And 9/11 was the perfect excuse. Can't the manipulation of our wounded hearts, after a great national tragedy, be conspiracy enough? Of course it's about the oil, it about the whole region. It's about Israel and our former beef with all those "axis of evil" nations. It’s about Bush’s xenophobia. I think we would have ended up back there with or without 9/11, but, please, let those people who died on that die day with the dignity they deserve. It was a tragic day.

A few months after 9/11, I looked at an al Qaeda website and they claimed that 9/11 was revenge for every child who's stomach was born outside of it's body due to the use of depleted uranium in the gulf war. I don't think slaughtering thousands of innocents was just by no means, but what I'm saying is that they had their reasons and when you're living in the sand and you've got nothing else, a suicide mission seems pretty damn good. A 9/11 conspiracy theory even lessens what those mindless thugs died for.

Bleedingsnowman,

At what point did I claim that those videos were fair and balanced? This sift is so one-sided itself that it begged some balance. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get better links for balance - it's hard trying to find a balanced report, they seem to be on either extreme trying to convince you their side is right. I freely admit that I don't know about buildings. The one point that stuck out in my mind was that the building first started collapse where it was supported by a beam that wasn't damaged. Has that question been answered? (I'm honestly asking here.) It was because of that question that I ended up posting those links.

I don't know why you brought up the public official that thought 9/11 was purposeful. There are many former officials and covert agents that believe it was purposeful who don’t have a history of mental illness. That's more of a distracting fact than a relevant one.

You are making an assumption of what I believe when it comes to "conspiracy theories" (or perhaps addressing them in general.) Either way, let me clear the air so that you know where I stand on this. I think the theories that deal with the planes are extremely unlikely and don't stand up to the light of day. The theories about the buildings are unlikely also. The only reason that they continue is the government's behavior of seizing all evidence and hiding/destroying it. I understand your point about not releasing the material, but after studying history of the US and seeing the amount of governments that the US has covertly overthrown in the last 50+ years; I don't really trust the government’s intentions very much anymore. I personally believe that some people found out about this planned attack and then made sure it happened. Otherwise it is hard to explain such things such as multiple CIA investigations being purposefully blocked against people on the terrorists watch list, etc. As I said before, "Crossing the Rubicon" does a good job of pulling together the motives (and some actions) for some people in our government to make sure that 9/11 succeeded. I would recommend it to anyone. And no, it isn’t one of those kooky conspiracy books with large assumptions, half-truths, etc.

Lastly, I really hope you don't take this as an attack because that is not my intention. It's very hard to have a discussion about an issue like this because it evokes a lot of emotion. You did mention that you knew about buildings. Can you answer the one question from the first paragraph? (It refers to the first link.) With that answered, I feel that I can personally move the theories about the buildings from ‘unlikely’ to ‘extremely unlikely’. Oh, I’ll edit those links out too.

I find it funny that when it concerns the holding of 9.11 evidence the anti-conspirators always say that its okay for the government to withhold evidence.

Given the legal and judicial infractions over the last 8 years, I don't believe a fucking word from the Administration anymore. Torture? Iraq War? Insurgency? Gitmo? Don Siegleman? David Addington?

I think discussing 9/11 is a moot point, its really like the JFK thing now, what is important is what that day has meant for the principles upon which the US was founded and how all that was unraveled by a bunch of lunatics at the helm with regards to legal standing, world standing, foreign policy, security and economy.

I wasn't addressing you personally, curiosity, only in reference to the videos which I now see I mistakenly thought you labeled as "balanced." Sorry if I made you feel called out.

Bleedingsnowman,

No problem. I can see how my phrasing could easily be read as that. I will edit that to make it more clear. I admit I probably wrote more because one of your first statements directly addressed the links I put up. I also hope you didn't take my question as if I was coming after you or trying to bait you into an argument. It was only the combination of the question in my head, you mentioning you knew about buildings, and my thirst for answers.

I agree that most of the conspiracy theories are way out there. But I think there are still many questions from professionals (engineers, etc.) that were left unanswered. It isn't a huge deal to me, because I've done my research and come up with my personal answer. (Minus research on the WTC buildings because I don't have the background to judge those theories.) Farhad2000 makes a point that discussing 9/11 is a moot point. I agree to some degree; however, I think that we have all know someone in our lives that will try to get away with as much as possible until you call them on it. I'd rather our government not act like that.

>> ^Irishman:
Q. How do you kill a conspiracy theory?
A. Tell the truth.
Something we still don't have after all these years.


That's bogus, people have told the truth about the JFK assassination and STILL there are people who believe it was a conspiracy. Even though anyone who studies it has to face the truth at sometime and admit there is not one shred of evidence to like Lee Harvey Oswald to any type of organization.
Truth: it was a standalone act committed by one man. That's the truth, and yet the conspiracy remains for the uninformed.