quote:

---

M.Gregus ..

I'm going to close the conspiracy theory here for length.

---

Kidding... seriously. I know I get heated about this stuff, but I know rabble's not against the discussion.

However from the people who were arguing this with me, there are some good points in their discussions. But in a very serious matter, why does anyone who agrees that there are inconsistancies with 9/11 think it's a 'waste of time' chasing down the truth?

My reason for wanting to poke holes in the story is that there seems to be a massive complicity (not direct involvement, but a sort of acceptance) from not only the government, but the main stream media.

This is one of the easiest examples to show 'common' people that most politicians and corporations are out for their OWN interests and not the 'people's and if we break down this lie it becomes a lot easier to show people the rest of the lies we're told every day (eg. the tax cuts help the poor the most, environmental protection kills jobs, etc etc..).

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
My reason for wanting to poke holes in the story is that there seems to be a massive complicity (not direct involvement, but a sort of acceptance) from not only the government, but the main stream media.

---

I think the conspiracy theorists have substituted critical thinking with pure denunciation. In fact, as I've argued before, I think they demostrate the power of Will over Reason, Belief over Fact.

What does one make of this mess? The physical details of 9/11 are questioned, and in their place the most absurd possible claims are substituted as the "real" truth "hidden" from the masses. So Popular Mechanics puts out a whole issue dedicated to the science of 9/11, essentially confirming the broad paramaters of the official version which we all saw play out before our eyes coming on six years ago; this is dismissed as propaganda from the corporate media. So Counterpunch - just about the antithesis of corporate media - does its own investigation, which pretty much confirms the Popular Mechanics issue. And? Counterpunch are now "gatekeepers" conspiring to keep the world in the dark.

But it's not just the physical evidence, now. No, we are told with fervent belief that the Mossad, M16, the CIA, the oil cartels, etc. ad nauseum are really to blame. Hell, everyone is to blame except for the people who have threatened and now rejoice in the attacks. And who actually piloted the damn planes.

Where does this nonsense come from? That's what I want to know. Because that's what "Loose Change" and the "9/11 Truth Movement" are. Nonsense. Bile and innuendo put forth as truth, following no standards of evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I don't know if there was a conspiracy or not. But I am damn certain the official version is a pack of lies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Complicity in what? Or do you mean complacency?

Neither of those words would be accurate, IMNSHO.

---

Complicity in acccepting the story as is, the governments immediately imposing similar to the US draconian laws against our freedoms, the media refusing to accept anything other than official story, all the way clear through to the easily refutable lies leading to the Iraq war.

That's what I mean, you may disagree, but that's my opinion.

quote:

---

This is what I'm talking about. What does this even mean?

---

It means that there is no "truth" any longer. In a culture where there is not a narrative based upon any tangible realities, we have entered the realm of quantum-reality, where everything is simultaneously false and true.

quote:

---

What "official version"? The fuck?

---

quote:

---

This administration can't even figure out how to conquer Iraq, yet you credit them with an elaborate hoax

---

quote:

---

the murder of thousands, the simultaneous destruction of three (at least) buildings, a media-wide conspiracy,

---

quote:

---

What "questions" do you even want answered?

---

[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

The 9/11 commision is a book with a lot of false information. Im not going to go into who did it, although i do believe that said "Cavemen in Caves" did the deed, but they were helped in some way in doing so.

Coyote, I understand that you think this is garbage, but America itself is split on the fact that questions are not answered. see Here!

But I mean, if one was really fed up with this conversation 6 years later - one would stay of of threads named 9/11 Thread Closed to Keep us from the Truth

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Isn't that why we went to war in Afghanistan?... You accept that don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Ah, yes. Arabs in caves. Thought that might come out.

---

quote:

---

Right, so everyone who doesn't believe the US government itself destroyed the twin towers must necessarily support the war on Afghanistan?

You really are delusional, FM.

---

[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

As I said in the previous thread: I don't believe the whole story has come out. But for a bunch of lay people to be saying that because there are questions, the whole story is a pack of lies (your phrase, I believe), while the bulk of the scientific community shrugs its shoulders is bordering on lunacy.

It's funny, because I equate the 9-11 sceptics to the climate change sceptics (with the obvious discrepancy that they're less likely to be promoting an issue for their corporate backers). They want to believe so badly in what their ideology leads them to believe that they ignore the wealth of evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

a member of an ancient Jewish sect in Judea in the first century who fought to the death against the Romans and who killed or persecuted Jews who collaborated with the Romans

partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Did I say that? I don't think I did.

---

quote:

---

It is interesting that when your world view is questioned you respond with a personal attack.

---

quote:

---

As I said in the previous thread: I don't believe the whole story has come out. But for a bunch of lay people to be saying that because there are questions, the whole story is a pack of lies (your phrase, I believe), while the bulk of the scientific community shrugs its shoulders is bordering on lunacy.

---

BTW, a zealot is someone who accepts a "truth" as faith and refuses to hear or countenance any contrary opinions. As you walk away in a huff, I suppose that would define you as the zealot, no?

quote:

---

I think you did. You suggested that people who don't buy your conspiracy theory are buying into the whole official rationale for the war in Afghanistan

---

True of false: the US went to war against Afghanistan to capture bin Laden for planning and carrying out the conspiracy of 9/11? If that is true, how does acknowledging a fact suggest anyone approved of the US action?

quote:

---

You weren't questioning my world view. You were trying to set up a binary scenario in which everyone must choose between accepting the Bush case for war in Afghanistan or accepting your bizarre conspiracy theories.

---

Finally, any effort of establishing a "binary scenario in which everyone must choose between accepting the Bush case for war in Afghanistan" or not, is yours, not mine.

[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Isn't that why we went to war in Afghanistan? To capture the James Bond villain who plotted, financed, and carried out the 9/11 attacks all under the nose of the largest and most sophisticated national security systems in the history of human kind? You accept that don't you?

---

FM, have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Before you take offense, you have committed the logical fallacy of asking a loaded question.

quote:

---

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

---

quote:

---

Again, I have posited no theory, you have, however, supported the official conspiracy theory -- or have you? Do you buy the official conspiracy theory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Isn't that why we went to war in Afghanistan? To capture the James Bond villain who plotted, financed, and carried out the 9/11 attacks all under the nose of the largest and most sophisticated national security systems in the history of human kind? You accept that don't you?

---

It's not "loony" to question how 40-year-old 110-story steel and concrete buildings collapse - the first in the history of modern construction! - neater than 2 houses of cards after less than two hours of burning (in the first case, less than one hour!) It's reasonable and sane to ask such a question. Anyone who doesn't question that, imo, is, well, a bit loony.

It's not "loony" to question the authenticity of media reports that one of the hijacker's passports was found intact in the rubble, when they officially "never found" the black flight boxes. It's reasonable and sane to doubt such a claim.

It's not loony to question the apparent vaporization of a Boeing 757 from a crash into a building (leaving a neat 12'? 16'? hole in the side wall, but itself disappearing for the most part, leaving merely a few odd bits of fusilage). These are sane, reasonable questions that are not being answered satisfactorily. I don't care if you have 100 engineers reports attempting to explain away the blatant illogic that defies common sense.

I could go on, but I'm tired and we've done this in several other threads. My point is, to question the bizarre illogic of these strange, ill-fitting facts is COMMON SENSE, and it's frightening to me that so many apparently reasonable people will not trust what they see with their own eyes, will not trust their own COMMON SENSE.

And like fartful codger, I too get tired of this unwinnable argument.

[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

FM, have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Before you take offense, you have committed the logical fallacy of asking a loaded question.

---

quote:

---

Asking if the US went to war in Afghanistan is not even remotely similar to asking someone "ave you stopped beating your wife?"

---

If that was what was asked, this question could have been answered 'yes.'

But you asked a very different question: "Isn't this why we went to war in Afghanistan?"

The presuppostion is contained in the question that follows: "To capture the James Bond villain who plotted, financed, and carried out the 9/11 attacks all under the nose of the largest and most sophisticated national security systems in the history of human kind? You accept that don't you?"

quote:

---

So Popular Mechanics puts out a whole issue dedicated to the science of 9/11, essentially confirming the broad paramaters of the official version which we all saw play out before our eyes coming on six years ago;

---

The Popular Mechanics magazine that publishes such in-depth critical articles such asHypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon.

quote:

---

a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.

---

I'm sure they looked at the evidence real close-like.

So it's not conspiracies that I dismiss. Rather it's conspiracy theories that make hugely substantial allegations based mostly on circumstantial evidence and conjecture and speculation that I view with a large degree of skepticism.

It's one thing to raise the possibility of these conspiracies based on circumstantial evidence, since most often that's all legitimately concerned and curious people have to go on--and it's certainly possible that circumstantial evidence, if not refuted by other facts, is a sign of some deeper information that hasn't been revealed.

It's quite another to draw a final conclusion insisting there IS a conspiracy when in fact the only evidence offered is incidental and circumstantial and a lot of speculation added to it.

Actually, I remember someone quoting a poll about a year ago (get remember source) claiming that a large and ever-growing number of US citizens think the Bush Administration had a hand in the 911 attacks, if not orchestrating them outright.

While I don’t blame them for that suspicion, and I certainly wouldn’t be surprised that the Bush-stag would pull something like this, again, most of the evidence is circumstantial and a lot of it is exaggerated.

We do know from the 911 inquiry commission, which Bush shut down before it could complete its investigation (thereby adding to the suspicion), that the government knew the attacks were coming, and had some pretty precise info on where, when and how, it chose to ignore it and do nothing to try to prevent them. That alone, as far as I’m concerned, is enough to warrant the overthrow of the Bush regime—or at least impeachment of Dubya himself, which many Americans are pushing for.

And, of course, we do know that Al Qaeda, like the Taliban, was set up with the help of the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia governments and the Bin Laden family and its ties to numerous US capitalist elites, including the Bush family, led by Osama (who broke with the US after Bush Sr. let Hussein stay in power in Iraq, instead of replacing him with a Taliban-like government, which is what he wanted).

But unless someone finds a verified report somewhere showing some level of secret talks between the Bush-stag and Bin Laden before the attacks, or actually plotting them, then you can’t say with any credibility there was a conspiracy. Suspicion is all you can really say.

quote:

---

Remember, we, as activists and free thinkers, don’t need to rely on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to justify our opposition to these tyrannies and their various creeps and economic agendas and policies. There are more than enough easily identifiable factual reasons to do so, and these creeps keep giving us more, openly at no charge every day. Steppenwolf Allende

---

Your input is very thoughful and reasonably balanced.

I am sure you agree that transparency in governmment's administration of public affairs is a cornerstone of democracy and when governments draw the curtain to prevent public gaze into their actions and inactions, that only triggers suspicions and fuels speculations. But then there is this notion of "conspiracy theorists" that someone has coined and was found to be very useful as a tool to deride those who exercice their free thinking (again, in the absence of government transparence which is already a transgression on the part of government). And why not slap a few epithets such as "nuts" and "lunatics" and what have you for good measure. The agressed (the public) becomes the "loony" agressor of a 'squeaky clean' government.

Thus, what pains me is when progressive people join the fray in the put-down of people who advance their own thoughts. Lack of "evidence" is often pointed out to them while unconvincing and sometimes outright fabricated evidence as well as past history of fabricating evidence by governments are overlooked.

My view is that in the circumstances of lack of transparencey on the part of governments, it is totally legitimate for citizenry to speculate without being ridiculed. (I use the word citizenry as in world citizenry).

I myself have advanced the possiblity of Mossad involvment. Motive is there, opportunity is there and as valid as motive and opportunity ascribed to "Al Qaeda". Or even more so, considering that the Mosssad is much more "experienced", equipped, fluid and much further and easier reaching around the world. Furthermore, Mossad is and has been proven much more capable of recruiting operatives of various ethnic features, than Al Qaeda. Mind you, Osama Bin Laden first denied any involvment but later we were shown parts of tape where he talked about involvment. Couldn't he been riding and further promoting the surge of his 'popularity' in some sick-minded ranks (T-Shirts with his picture selling hot in Pakistan) One wonders what is exactly outlandish in this speculation.

Some people can choose to direct their efforts towards wondering what they would do with their winnings.

Some people can choose to direct their efforts towards wondering how they rigged the draw.

However, one of these lines of thought are infinitely more constructive than the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:

But unless someone finds a verified report somewhere showing some level of secret talks between the Bush-stag and Bin Laden before the attacks, or actually plotting them, then you can’t say with any credibility there was a conspiracy. Suspicion is all you can really say.

---

Well...

July 4-14, 2001 - Osama bin Laden receives treatment for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and meets with a CIA official, who returns to CIA headquarters on July 15. [Source: Le Figaro, Oct. 31, 2001]Aug. 2, 2001 - U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Christine Rocca (a former CIA officer), meets in Islamabad with a Taliban ambassador and demands the extradition of bin Laden. This was the last known meeting on the subject. [Source: Brisard and Dasquie, p 79.]

Anyway, that's not the point. Those who are either trying to quell the conversation (don't know why), those who are bored of it (are happy to go elsewhere) and ther rest of the like seem to think that because some of us have questions about 9/11 that we all believe the same things and are onboard with the Israeli cabal kidnapping and replacing planes with missiles, and that Dick Cheney had this planned for years.

That's not the case... what I've been saying is that there are holes, some pretty ludicrous answers to some questions, and some really suspicious behaviour.

For those saying to read the popular mechanics and counterpunch articles, great! I have. The counterpunch article doens't bring anything new or investigative to the table, it's more just a snarky dismissal of the people involved in the truth movement. The Popular Mechanics article is even better, as half of their so called 'researched' answers come from GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. Therefore not a reliable or independant report.

Neither of these address the massive levels of ignorance and incompetancy needed for this to have gone off under the official story.

While I don't believe in any of the conclusions the movement has reached, as many are based on conjecture and others in my opinion totally absurd, I still found plenty of evidence that requires at minimum further investigation.

Take for example the issue of insider trading. They in my opinion correctly argue that this is a red flag for foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. You will find a lot to be suspicious about when you look at the trading figures.

A footnote on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report note that "some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation." and that "the trading had no connection with 9/11."

Some will tell you that the trading was a normal reaction to speculation that further deteriorations in airline financials were probable.

The truth movement will argue that the put options was placed (in the suspicious manners they were placed) only on companies affected by the 9/11 events, and in amounts many times the normal trading levels to be a coincidence. They took that as a definitive proof for foreknowledge, and started to draw conclusions based on that belief.

In my opinion taking any side currently would be presumptuous, but with the main stream media largely ignoring such trading, and the government refusing to investigate further, you are only adding fuel to the fire. A full fledged investigation (not just a foot note on the commission report) is required and has the potential to either end the feud on that point or may even find criminals with ties to terrorism.

No one thought they were going to take down the world trade center, but thought rather of the usual hijack and demand scenario taking place at JFK, a quick raid by Navy Seals, and very little carnage, but a good lesson for America, and just the kind of nice little event to give the PNAC agenda a lift.

No special control room with in-flight control over rides, no big reno of the buidlings by a team of demolitions experts, but a very simple, intentional displacement of security priorities, and just sit back and watch it all go down. And best of all it has loads of plausible deniability as everything could be fobbed of as a "mistake."

The fact that warnings were ignored has already more or less been established

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I think it's likely the hijackers didn't realize exactly where the means and ideas came from. It was mentioned by relatives of the hijackers after the fact that they believed the zealots had been brainwashed. I'm sure the CIA, and the allied countries militaries which participated in MK Ultra way back when, know all about religious zealotry and what a powerful catalyst that would be in controlling small armies of people, if only for short periods of time to achieve goal objectives as circumstances changed from month to month as if their requirements were tied to so many corporate quarterly business projections. I think western intelligence created this Islamic "Treadstone" black operation maybe a few months in advance and perhaps even a few years in the making. al Qaeda leaders were wheeling and dealing with western intelligence agencies for sophisticated arms, money and who knows what else in exchange for a special "job" doing.

This black op was dismantled in record time after 9-11, like Treadstone was in a Robert Ludlum novel. Except for top level al Qaeda leaders enjoying super-duper top secret security clearance, the jobbers never knew that Allah was working through them by way of a contract job. In their pliable young minds, conditioned to carry out an especially violent brand of jihad, they willingly gave their lives for Allah and Islam.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

In their pliable young minds, conditioned to carry out an especially violent brand of jihad, they willingly gave their lives for Allah and Islam.

---

Unless they were also conditioned into believing a new "injected" version of Islam that allowed them to frequently get drunk, visit Las Vegas, pick up female escorts here and there, enjoy a few lap-dances especially in the few days and for some hours before uttering their last Allahu Akbar. Good deeds with which to face the Creator they are "serving".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's the suicide pact thing that made me wonder. Death is so final. Why, fervent nationalism?. Or was it simply a death wish for American empire?. I think their culture doesn't fear death like we do. For Eastern cultures, life and death are cyclical. For us it's grab what you can while you can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

Unless they were also conditioned into believing a new "injected" version of Islam that allowed them to frequently get drunk, visit Las Vegas, pick up female escorts here and there, enjoy a few lap-dances especially in the few days and for some hours before uttering their last Allahu Akbar. Good deeds with which to face the Creator they are "serving".

Their "religiosity" is extremely doubtful. If any link to Al Qaeda, they can only be unwitting sub-contractors hired by some intelligence entity. Or they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda whatsoever.

---

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Gwyne Dyer says it better than me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Sure, that is the Chenney planned 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It has absolutely no relation to the Chenney cabal simply intentionally avoided doing anything about the copious warnings coming in from the national security agencies. That just takes a few people saying things like: "I don't find that to be a very credible threat," and "my other sources say this is under control," and things of that order.

---

The economic recession that was just getting underway at the end of Clinton's rein was another obvious fact that went ignored by Republicans for a few years. The superrich in America love a good recession with lots of job losses.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Those events were symbolic of the cone of silence that fell over the US for the first month or two. Lots of self-censorship on the part of the media as if it would be cruel to question events when the US was still grieving. That's why the invasion of Afghanistan was such a cakewalk as was the creation of Homeland Security and all the powers they were afforded.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

It is a real problem, because by linking their fantasies about 9/11 to the Bush administration's deliberate deception of the American people in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq, they bring discredit on the truth and the nonsense alike.

---

Who can say what the motive for that was? Its all conjecture of course, but its a perfectly valid conjecture.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]