9/11 truth

[jpd1975]

There are many unanswered questions that need to be investigated. There is a growing cry for a new investigation of what happened on 9/11 -
watch the movie loose change on google video -

There are more and more citizens that are asking for real answers on what happened on that day and the days leading up to that day... this movement is growing... keep an open mind and question the official story..

[Mitch]

Thread Moved to Conspiracies
I don't think 9/11 itself was a conspiracy, but the events leading up to it I believe were (after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11). The Bush's involvement with the Saudis and the Bin Laden family can create consequences like those of 9/11

[Cattraknoff]

NORAD was rendered ineffective by "training exercises" on the day of the attacks. This alone proves US government (or those controlling them) at the very least allowing it to happen.

In 2000, NORAD never botched a single of its many interceptions. On 9/11, we're supposed to believe they failed four times on one day.

Do not expect any investigation that will find truth. The powers that be will not allow it.

[Mitch]

I'm sure that in 100 years we'll find out the truth about it, once all the people involved are long dead. There is definitely some suspicions in the events of 9/11 that loose change points out, particularly the plane that hit the pentagon, I think they just took advantage of the 9/11 moment to cover up some stuff.
Check out Unfastened Coins, it's a joke conspiracy that a comedian made up, it's hilarious!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

[Cattraknoff]

They took advantage of 9/11 in order to strip people of their civil liberties. It allowed them to create a false "war" that can never be won, but it allows them to instill a great fear in the people (with the help of the media), to the point where they surrender their civil liberties in order to avoid the one in several thousand chance that a terrorist might get them. (Which only really happens on a large scale anyway if the government wants it to). The US government was warned about 9/11 by Israel, Russia, and several other countries. That, combined with the fact that NORAD was rendered useless "coincidentally" is enough in my mind to show some foul-play on the part of the American government; especially considering what they've done as a result of the attacks.

[Ed Jones]

Hardly a conspiricy theory. In the words of Stan from South Park "[9/11 was caused by] a bunch of pissed off Muslims."

[Cattraknoff]

Hardly a conspiricy theory. In the words of Stan from South Park "[9/11 was caused by] a bunch of pissed off Muslims."

They carried it out perhaps; but it wouldn't have happened without a bit of help on our end.

[Horus]

We're supposed to believe that the US has weaponry that can shoot down anything that moves within minutes of it becoming a threat. They have weaponry in addition that is so intelligent it might as well have a heartbeat too. Four planes managed to get hijacked, one of which crashed into the most heavily-guarded building on Earth?

I've got my own opinions on the atrocity, but I have always thought something was a little fishy.

[Cattraknoff]

We're supposed to believe that the US has weaponry that can shoot down anything that moves within minutes of it becoming a threat. They have weaponry in addition that is so intelligent it might as well have a heartbeat too. Four planes managed to get hijacked, one of which crashed into the most heavily-guarded building on Earth?

I've got my own opinions on the atrocity, but I have always thought something was a little fishy.

We're also supposed to believe that NATO running "training exercises" on the exact same scenario, at the exact same time, was a complete coincidence.

Also remember that in the days following 9/11, the Bush administration had claimed they had never even considered the possibility that people could use planes as weapons. They didn't consider it, yet they ran training exercises for the same scenario, which caused NATO to have too many possible hijackings occurring for them to be able to deal with the real ones going on.

Also, when it comes to the war on terror which has resulted, it has allowed the government to strip us of many of our constitutional rights. When democrats question this "war", they only question the lives lost, the money spent. They don't say a damned thing about our civil liberties being taken away, and I highly doubt that if and when the democrats get into office, they will change the constitution back to the way it used to be.

Both sides are working for the same thing, they just make it look like there's a difference of opinion so we can believe that there is actually a chance to fix things using the current system. There isn't, and things will only get worse unless people actually do something about it.

[Horus]

We're also supposed to believe that NATO running "training exercises" on the exact same scenario, at the exact same time, was a complete coincidence.

Also remember that in the days following 9/11, the Bush administration had claimed they had never even considered the possibility that people could use planes as weapons. They didn't consider it, yet they ran training exercises for the same scenario, which caused NATO having too many possible hijackings occurring for them to be able to deal with the real ones going on.
It sounds ridiculous that we're encouraged to believe that. In addition (just to further your point) I have found a story written by a very respectable US daily newspaper, which claims that the US Government wasn't even thinking about the possibility that planes could be used as a weapon;

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer)

Also, when it comes to the war on terror which has resulted, it has allowed the government to strip us of many of our constitutional rights. When democrats question this "war", they only question the lives lost, the money spent. They don't say a damned thing about our civil liberties being taken away, and I highly doubt that if and when the democrats get into office, they will change the constitution back to the way it used to be.
I'm not even certain of the amount of the US Army that still remains in the country, protecting the US from an attack from within. There are many threats about it, and of course someone will be bound to put a little spin on it, but there has been a significant warning about an attack on US soil again.

Both sides are working for the same thing, they just make it look like there's a difference of opinion so we can believe that there is actually a chance to fix things using the current system. There isn't, and things will only get worse unless people actually do something about it.
You will have to agree that it's a masterful plan to keep Bush in office. Whilst he continues to 'work' for peace in the affected Middle East countries, it tries to persuade the US voters that he's too far progressed in this issue to be thrown out of office now.

[Cattraknoff]

It sounds ridiculous that we're encouraged to believe that. In addition (just to further your point) I have found a story written by a very respectable US daily newspaper, which claims that the US Government wasn't even thinking about the possibility that planes could be used as a weapon;

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer)


I'm not even certain of the amount of the US Army that still remains in the country, protecting the US from an attack from within. There are many threats about it, and of course someone will be bound to put a little spin on it, but there has been a significant warning about an attack on US soil again.


You will have to agree that it's a masterful plan to keep Bush in office. Whilst he continues to 'work' for peace in the affected Middle East countries, it tries to persuade the US voters that he's too far progressed in this issue to be thrown out of office now.

How many terrorist attacks have happened over the past 100 years? How many people, total have died from them?

Take that number, and I guarantee it is below 10,000 (In the US). If you took the total number of people that died during that time (not just terrorism) you will likely get a figure that suggests far less than 1% (Or even .001%) of people have died from terrorism. Now, just because of that minute chance of it happening, we have allowed our recent administrations to strip away our most important constitutional rights, and even questioned as to whether we need harsher measures in place. 9/11 was at the very least allowed to happen, as have been many "terrorist" attacks. If you took the ones that were actually caused, with the government doing everything it could do at the time (Within constitutional rights), the chances of you dying as the result of one are even more inconsequential.

Yes 9/11 was a horrible thing, but far worse is us giving up the very freedoms the country was supposed to be founded upon, and far worse is the fact that no one even questions it. We're so afraid of something that in the grand scheme of things we need not be afraid of, that we will hand our government the tools to create an absolute dictatorship.

[Cattraknoff]

tried to edit this in at the end of that post but it didn't work:

9/11 is quite frankly, the American equivalent of the burning of the Reichstag in Nazi Germany. Hell, Bush even made several direct quotes of Hitler in his resulting speeches.

Also, when it comes to bush remaining in office, at this point it doesn't matter. Anyone who things he has actually had much say in what the country does, is sadly mistaken. His lack of intelligence is proof enough of this.

[Horus]

Take that number, and I guarantee it is below 10,000 (In the US). If you took the total number of people that died during that time (not just terrorism) you will likely get a figure that suggests far less than 1% (Or even .001%) of people have died from terrorism. Now, just because of that minute chance of it happening, we have allowed our recent administrations to strip away our most important constitutional rights, and even questioned as to whether we need harsher measures in place. 9/11 was at the very least allowed to happen, as have been many "terrorist" attacks. If you took the ones that were actually caused, with the government doing everything it could do at the time (Within constitutional rights), the chances of you dying as the result of one are even more inconsequential.
First of all, I'm going to have to ask you: which constitutional rights? I think by clarifying on those we can progress the thread much further and work on how we can retain those rights without sacrificing the current war effort in the Middle East.

Of course the natural death rate makes every single other event seem insignificant in terms of population rate. 155,000 people roughly die per day (in terms of 1.8 per second globally); there are NO atrocities in the history of the human race that can claim a considerable dent upon that. I'm probably going to take a stab at saying that number would be half of what it is now if AIDS had been cured by now.

Yes 9/11 was a horrible thing, but far worse is us giving up the very freedoms the country was supposed to be founded upon, and far worse is the fact that no one even questions it. We're so afraid of something that in the grand scheme of things we need not be afraid of, that we will hand our government the tools to create an absolute dictatorship.
Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. The US is placing absolute power in the hands of their leader as they have been terrified into wishing for a peaceful resolution to the war, in either victory or retreat. I agree with you in that the average citizen doesn't want to have to take the subway to work without glancing across the carriage at a shifty-looking man with a backpack, but the US is a generally paranoid country anyway.

[Cattraknoff]

First of all, I'm going to have to ask you: which constitutional rights? I think by clarifying on those we can progress the thread much further and work on how we can retain those rights without sacrificing the current war effort in the Middle East.

Of course the natural death rate makes every single other event seem insignificant in terms of population rate. 155,000 people roughly die per day (in terms of 1.8 per second globally); there are NO atrocities in the history of the human race that can claim a considerable dent upon that. I'm probably going to take a stab at saying that number would be half of what it is now if AIDS had been cured by now.


Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. The US is placing absolute power in the hands of their leader as they have been terrified into wishing for a peaceful resolution to the war, in either victory or retreat. I agree with you in that the average citizen doesn't want to have to take the subway to work without glancing across the carriage at a shifty-looking man with a backpack, but the US is a generally paranoid country anyway.

The freedom to not be taken, imprisoned, or in any other way destroyed, except by a lawful trial with a jury of your peers. The laws that allow terrorists to be taken off the streets, also apply to the average citizen. They may not seem as apparent to us, but that could change at any moment.

How many terrorist attacks actually do happen in western nations, though? Very few. Out of all the countless flights, subway rides, etc, how many are bombed? how many hijacked? Does this incredibly small percentage justify the ending of constitutional rights that we as human beings, as free men and women, are supposed to be guaranteed?

My point is, that we must allow no exceptions to such civil liberties, regardless of whether it is currently only supposedly used against terrorists. Define what a "terrorist" is. Would I be regarded as one for opposing the government (Now, or in the future)?

The measures enacted in Nazi Germany were to "end terrorism" among other things, and it prompted people giving up their (albiet already somewhat limited) civil rights. When such powers are given to the government, they can and will be abused; and there is no reason to enact such laws unless you intend to abuse them (or allow a future administration to do so). Ask yourself: Why is it that the democrats, that anyone in the media, don't question this?

[Horus]

Oh, you refer to Guantanamo Bay. I let that slip under the radar because I have not enough knowledge of the individuals inside; I therefore label them terrorists (and as a result un-American) out of ignorance and the time it saves.

Good point about the boundaries of terrorism. You could look in dictionaries all day and posture about it, but none of the definitions will be wholly accurate. Perhaps we're terrorists by whining about Bush on an internet discussion board? I don't know; many countries (still apparently back in the Stone Age) forbid public detriment of their leader, so I guess we are. :D

[Cattraknoff]

Oh, you refer to Guantanamo Bay. I let that slip under the radar because I have not enough knowledge of the individuals inside; I therefore label them terrorists (and as a result un-American) out of ignorance and the time it saves.

Good point about the boundaries of terrorism. You could look in dictionaries all day and posture about it, but none of the definitions will be wholly accurate. Perhaps we're terrorists by whining about Bush on an internet discussion board? I don't know; many countries (still apparently back in the Stone Age) forbid public detriment of their leader, so I guess we are. :D

Also, continuing that point, how are any one of us to know that the people being arrested are actually terrorists? None of us have any real knowledge of the things going on at Guantanamo and any other facility that exists. Guantanamo is likely just the tip of the iceberg, or will become so. If the government starts stepping up arrests of "terrorists", we will have no way of knowing whether these people being arrested actually are. It is my firm belief that the trials of any person, whatever the charge, must be made public; and these are likely the reasons why it was written to be like that in the constitutions of many nations.

[Horus]

Also, continuing that point, how are any one of us to know that the people being arrested are actually terrorists? None of us have any real knowledge of the things going on at Guantanamo and any other facility that exists. Guantanamo is likely just the tip of the iceberg, or will become so. If the government starts stepping up arrests of "terrorists", we will have no way of knowing whether these people being arrested actually are. It is my firm belief that the trials of any person, whatever the charge, must be made public; and these are likely the reasons why it was written to be like that in the constitutions of many nations.
How would it feel to be in Guantanamo and be innocent? You have no voice, and would probably be lashed if you attempted to have one. Just by being there (even if you were released without charge) your peers would still think you to be a terrorist. It's a very draconian way of thinking, in an age that is supposed to be the best yet for human rights.

[Cattraknoff]

How would it feel to be in Guantanamo and be innocent? You have no voice, and would probably be lashed if you attempted to have one. Just by being there (even if you were released without charge) your peers would still think you to be a terrorist. It's a very draconian way of thinking, in an age that is supposed to be the best yet for human rights.

And the problem is, that even if somebody is innocent in there, absolutely no one else in the world has any way of knowing that, of even hearing your side of the story (for the most part). Also, there many places we send people aside from Guantanamo, most aren't even known to exist by the general populace. How are the people in these supposed to get fair treatment, how are they supposed to get the justice to which they are entitled?

What happens if the government does start sending political dissidents, or other people they don't like, to these prisons? We will have no way of knowing if and when they start doing so, and therefore no way of acting against it.

[Horus]

What you're saying rings true; that we are in fact veering towards a dictatorship if every dissident and nay-sayer were to be jailed. I think that the lack of human rights available to the 'victims' of Guantanamo Bay make it difficult to gauge if they are actually telling the truth or not; sensory deprivation amongst other things could cause you to say some things you don't really mean.

It's a touchy subject. I suppose we'd all like hindsight or infinite knowledge; that way, we'd very likely see far less inhabitants of that institution than there actually are.

[Cattraknoff]

What you're saying rings true; that we are in fact veering towards a dictatorship if every dissident and nay-sayer were to be jailed. I think that the lack of human rights available to the 'victims' of Guantanamo Bay make it difficult to gauge if they are actually telling the truth or not; sensory deprivation amongst other things could cause you to say some things you don't really mean.

It's a touchy subject. I suppose we'd all like hindsight or infinite knowledge; that way, we'd very likely see far less inhabitants of that institution than there actually are.

If what our governments were doing were just, there would be no reason for them to hide anything. People must always be informed, must always know what our governments are doing. Why were these exceptions to the American constitution barely even mentioned, almost not at all by major media? And when they are mentioned, it is always in passing, and completely engulfed by the supposed benefits of increased security, and safety from the evil terrorists which seldom kill people when the government doesn't let them.

[Horus]

If what our governments were doing were just, there would be no reason for them to hide anything. People must always be informed, must always know what our governments are doing. Why were these exceptions to the American constitution barely even mentioned, almost not at all by major media? And when they are mentioned, it is always in passing, and completely engulfed by the supposed benefits of increased security, and safety from the evil terrorists which seldom kill people when the government doesn't let them.
Agreed. Secrets are normally kept because the potential is there for them to severely damage someone's reputation. Yet, we're left to speculate on them and perform a huge separation between the newsgroups and the government. That breeds mistrust, and in the long term, false history.

It's easy to believe that it's nice to keep a secret as it gives you your own dimension of privacy that you can keep people on their toes with, but that doesn't have any place with an institution as huge as the US Government.

[Cattraknoff]

Agreed. Secrets are normally kept because the potential is there for them to severely damage someone's reputation. Yet, we're left to speculate on them and perform a huge separation between the newsgroups and the government. That breeds mistrust, and in the long term, false history.

It's easy to believe that it's nice to keep a secret as it gives you your own dimension of privacy that you can keep people on their toes with, but that doesn't have any place with an institution as huge as the US Government.

It breeds mistrust in those who would question what they are told. But we are taught that this is a bad thing by our education systems, by religious organizations, by the media. Few people question their government's actions as much as they should, and when they do they focus mainly on what the media tells them they are doing most often. Also, how many people question the political system itself? We're taught in our schools that democracy is so great, so impervious to corruption. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but many do believe it. Our society is also encouraged to be selfish, to be greedy, by our capitalist system. We are also taught not to think too much on the effects of that unchecked greed, many don't care because we can simply throw ourselves into our favorite TV sitcom, video game, etc. We've been taught to ignore problems, rather than confront them. We're taught to accept personal flaws like obesity, rather than try to fix them. We're taught to accept the flaws of our system of government, rather than try to change things on any meaningful level.

[Horus]

We have a winner!

People don't question the actions / words of their government, because they don't really know how far they should go to question them. There's an ignorant feeling amongst people I've discussed it with who usually come out with rubbish like this:

"Well, if the people voted him in, isn't that reason enough to have absolute faith in him?"

Nope, not really. You VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE because you're supposed to be the ones to choose your government! That's what a democracy is! Once you become disillusioned with your leader, and less than a hundred percent behind every choice he makes, then it's high-time you chose another leader. For he is the man (or she is the woman) who represents every single voice in the country; once that representation becomes untrue, then it's easy to think he's still doing his job and that the people behind him are the perpetrators.

[Cattraknoff]

One of the most important rights that we are not taught, is our right to a revolution against an unjust government. Every person should be aware of it, and why it might become necessary. This is what makes history so important, but we don't teach anything of this nature in a history class.

The same things that happened in Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, and many other instances, are happening today. If we got into too much detail over how past governments have actually turned into a dictatorship, and why they did it, people would be better prepared to act against it. Granted, the situations are not exactly the same, but knowledge of these events at least opens people more to the possibility that their government could be doing things that are wrong.

[Horus]

You can generally tell when your government is leaning towards a dictatorship as well; the people we mention who do not question a thing are the ones who actually don't. We all know that their vote isn't worth a dime anyway, because they're probably wooed into voting for the one who uses the most buzz-words on TV or the prettiest colours in their election flyers.

It's a shame. Ignorance is rife.

[Cattraknoff]

But even the ignorant know there are problems in society. I've talked to people of many different backgrounds, upbringings, etc. Even those who would you say do not give a shit, are shown to care, when these things are brought up; those who spend their lives partying, doing drugs, those who distract themselves with these things and many others. They do care, but many just feel it is hopeless to wish for change; many do not know that it could be different. I believe there is a chance to save us from a dictatorship that is in our societies in essence, in spirit. We may be called democratic, but in truth we are anything but. Democracy cannot live when the general populace is kept ignorant. We are taught to be ignorant, and very few change that. It is not that they can't, but simply that they do not realize that they can.

[Keramac]

What people seem to be missing is that within the beraucracy of the American government, or any government for that matter, trying to adapt to a radically new action by "the enemy" is hard and slow. The Bush administration has shown its ineptitude in acting quickly in the way it handled Katrina, so why do we expect something different here. The Americans were caught with their pants down, and that's that. And I'm not even going to talk about the improbability of a conspiracy this size going down without it getting leaked. They can't even hide Clinton getting a BJ, why can they cover GW attacking his own citizens?

[Cattraknoff]

What people seem to be missing is that within the beraucracy of the American government, or any government for that matter, trying to adapt to a radically new action by "the enemy" is hard and slow. The Bush administration has shown its ineptitude in acting quickly in the way it handled Katrina, so why do we expect something different here. The Americans were caught with their pants down, and that's that. And I'm not even going to talk about the improbability of a conspiracy this size going down without it getting leaked. They can't even hide Clinton getting a BJ, why can they cover GW attacking his own citizens?

Because he didn't have to attack his own citizens; He only had to let it happen.

[Locke]

Not to mention the BJ scandal was only a minor interpersonal issue, and not one affecting the majority of the global population. It was severely blown out of proportion as another means to encourage ignorance, i.e.: The U.S. under Clinton installed countless dictatorships in Latin America, and U.S. weapons sales soared during that period, although the main focus of his entire tenure was the sex.

[jpd1975]

There were points made above about this being too big for it to be pulled off without word leaking - its really not too big... its a matter of exploiting the inherent flaws in the system - Generals just follow orders... exercise in Alaska on 9/11... "YESSIR" those types of conspiracies happen at the highest levels with very few people knowing what is really happening. Sort of like how terrorist cells can be coordinated to strike simultaneously with each having little or no knowledge of the other, so can a great disgraceful conspiracy meant to galvanize the populace into giving up their freedom in order to be safe... as Ben Franklin said paraphrased "any one that gives a little freedom in order to gain a little security deserves neither."

We are a disgracefully under educated society who knows little to nothing about our government...I mean you see comedians do interviews on the streets and people can't name the Vice President, etc. that is disgraceful.

Our republic died the day the "patriot act" was signed into law. It was pushed through because of the attacks and eviscerated the Bill of Rights, and when that was done - the Constitution was invalidated. Many of the Founders said that when a government is out of control it is not only the Right but the DUTY of the populace to install a new government to replace it. I do not advocate violence. We need a constitutional convention, with representatives that WE CHOOSE to go in and re work the system.

[Cattraknoff]

There were points made above about this being too big for it to be pulled off without word leaking - its really not too big... its a matter of exploiting the inherent flaws in the system - Generals just follow orders... exercise in Alaska on 9/11... "YESSIR" those types of conspiracies happen at the highest levels with very few people knowing what is really happening. Sort of like how terrorist cells can be coordinated to strike simultaneously with each having little or no knowledge of the other, so can a great disgraceful conspiracy meant to galvanize the populace into giving up their freedom in order to be safe... as Ben Franklin said paraphrased "any one that gives a little freedom in order to gain a little security deserves neither."

We are a disgracefully under educated society who knows little to nothing about our government...I mean you see comedians do interviews on the streets and people can't name the Vice President, etc. that is disgraceful.

Our republic died the day the "patriot act" was signed into law. It was pushed through because of the attacks and eviscerated the Bill of Rights, and when that was done - the Constitution was invalidated. Many of the Founders said that when a government is out of control it is not only the Right but the DUTY of the populace to install a new government to replace it. I do not advocate violence. We need a constitutional convention, with representatives that WE CHOOSE to go in and re work the system.

Sadly it's beyond anything that can be done inside of the current system. Violence may not be necessary, but if it is, we mustn't shy away from it. There are very few situations in which I would condone violence; Protecting my freedom, and that of my fellow citizen, is one of them. But simply attacking government officials or what have you won't help. All of the populace must be working together to cast them off. Simply having the vast majority of the populace against them could force them to step down. But we must be ruthless. Whilst not going as far as saying they all need to die, every scrap of the old system must be removed. Everyone who had any significant amount of power must lose that power. And if they refuse to give it up, they will have justified violence against them.

[Locke]

Sadly it's beyond anything that can be done inside of the current system. Violence may not be necessary, but if it is, we mustn't shy away from it. There are very few situations in which I would condone violence; Protecting my freedom, and that of my fellow citizen, is one of them. But simply attacking government officials or what have you won't help. All of the populace must be working together to cast them off. Simply having the vast majority of the populace against them could force them to step down. But we must be ruthless. Whilst not going as far as saying they all need to die, every scrap of the old system must be removed. Everyone who had any significant amount of power must lose that power. And if they refuse to give it up, they will have justified violence against them.
But here lies the problem of limited education, or perhaps limited potential. Until the majority of the population realizes what is going on, the situation will progressively worsen. I do not believe that they will, in fact, ever wake up to what is being done to them before it is too late (which may or may not be sometime in the extremely near future). All that is needed is one more so-called threat to "freedom" in the United States and martial law would set in under the pretext of security.
In most cases I would condemn violence, as it usually spirals out of the control, or is exacerbated beyond what is needed by those who have initiated it. History has taught us so: almost every violent rebellion has been followed by even more martial law. A good paradigm for some sort of revolution would the plan followed by Nelson Mandela, as he attacked only infrastructure and not people. However, I am filled with despair as the only reason his rebellion was successful were:
A. He had international support,
B. It was glaringly obvious to the South African population that they themselves were being actively repressed.
Neither of these apply to the United States, being the dominant power in the world. Most of the populace accepts the rhetoric proffered to them by their "leaders", and then go on to live their tempered only with parties, sex and football and drugs rather than their actual freedom, and being completely content doing so.

[adam99]

Do many american citizens still seriously think that 9/11 is some sort of "conspiracy"? I think it's ludicrous to think such a thing, and just stems from paranoia of the us people towards their own, elected, government.

Muslim fundamentalists had enough with the west, and so struck back.

[Cattraknoff]

Do many american citizens still seriously think that 9/11 is some sort of "conspiracy"? I think it's ludicrous to think such a thing, and just stems from paranoia of the us people towards their own, elected, government.

Muslim fundamentalists had enough with the west, and so struck back.

Why has it been used as an excuse to take away democratic rights?

Why does the media so overstate the threat from "terrorism"?

I could accept maybe that the many supposed coincidences actually were such, if the government didn't capitalize on it to further their own ambitions as they have.

[adam99]

Why has it been used as an excuse to take away democratic rights?
Perhaps because that's the way that your government thinks the country should be run. However, to say that they attacked their own civilians on US soil is pretty outrageous: whatever happened to Occam's razor?

[Cattraknoff]

Perhaps because that's the way that your government thinks the country should be run. However, to say that they attacked their own civilians on US soil is pretty outrageous: whatever happened to Occam's razor?

They need not directly attack their own citizens to have a part in it. They had a bunch of religious fanatics to do the hands-on part for them. Also, the way the government believes the country should be run, is not necessarily correct. Additionally, why is it so unfathomable for a government to attack its own people in order to expand its power over them? It has happened numerous times throughout history, and will continue to if this sort of naive hope that they will always have your best interests at heart, rather than their own self-interests, continues.

[Locke]

Do many american citizens still seriously think that 9/11 is some sort of "conspiracy"? I think it's ludicrous to think such a thing, and just stems from paranoia of the us people towards their own, elected, government.


Yet the Bush administration isn't the elected administration. That tampering took place in the voting process is almost inarguable.
So, the paranoia is justified since the administration practically installed itself.
I do not believe it was a plot, but I do believe it was a useful breeze for the Bush administration's sails.
Perhaps because that's the way that your government thinks the country should be run.
If that way is the desired paradigm that the government so piously devotes itself to, then it does not deserve to be the governenment. Corrupt media of which there is no plan to change, the gradual erosion of civil rights, outright lying by our Dear Leader himself (multiple times, no less), a draining economy caused by an unnecessary war...
However, to say that they attacked their own civilians on US soil is pretty outrageous...
As Cattraknoff explained, the concensus here is that it was a threat simply ignored by the governernment; this in itself is condemnable. But lo! It rots deeper! The threat was grown by the U.S. themselves, in the 80's. Under the pretense of (fabricated or perhaps very real) fear of the Soviet Union, the U.S. financed Osama bin'Laden to wage war against the U.S.S.R.,enabling him and his military to become rulers/ and Later in history, simply to further their own interests, they installed Saddam Hussein as dictator. And while we cannot blame one administration's faults on another's, hypocrisy still abounds, as the menace could easily have been averted by the government. Enough knowledge existed to foresee a large-scale attack.
And, judging by the way they have exerted their own power, it is arguable, even probable, that they put their own interests over the American population's. They would therefore not have any issues by allowing the attack.


p.s: You'll have to explain to me what Occam's Razor is.

[Gwendl]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist that the government attacked it's own citizens. I do believe that the terrorists did, in fact, fly planes into buildings and in the grounds. The problem is not the offense, but the defense and the secrecy surrounding why it failed. After all, we spend half a trillion dollars a year on defense, and yet four events were missed completely? I can understand the first one being a surprise. After all, hijackers don't usually plan to crash the plane. But the second, third and fourth?

IMO, if there is any paranoia, it was created by the government and their "can't prove anything..." type attitude. A full investigation that was unimpeded and straight forward would have gone a long way toward settling all of this. But instead, all we got was a committee who didn't get half the information, was rushed through it, and was opposed in it's creation to start with. That coupled with what the Bush admin did with this new culture of fear and it's not hard to figure out why people feel the way they do about the subject.

[Cattraknoff]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist that the government attacked it's own citizens. I do believe that the terrorists did, in fact, fly planes into buildings and in the grounds. The problem is not the offense, but the defense and the secrecy surrounding why it failed. After all, we spend half a trillion dollars a year on defense, and yet four events were missed completely? I can understand the first one being a surprise. After all, hijackers don't usually plan to crash the plane. But the second, third and fourth?

IMO, if there is any paranoia, it was created by the government and their "can't prove anything..." type attitude. A full investigation that was unimpeded and straight forward would have gone a long way toward settling all of this. But instead, all we got was a committee who didn't get half the information, was rushed through it, and was opposed in it's creation to start with. That coupled with what the Bush admin did with this new culture of fear and it's not hard to figure out why people feel the way they do about the subject.

I imagine they would have had difficulty explaining why exactly NORAD was running training exercises on the exact same scenario that day. Or why their administration claimed that they had never considered that people could use planes as weapons directly after the attack. Yet they received several intelligence reports warning about it, and were running "training exercises" to "prepare for it"... Or perhaps to make it impossible to stop when it came? How can you explain how you had no clue it might happen, but still managed to train for it? Far better to say next to nothing, and dismiss everyone who says more as a wild conspiracy theorist. Have faith in your government, because if you can't trust your own government, who can you trust? I mean, no government in history has ever harmed or lied to its people, right?

[ShadyPolitics]

Perhaps because that's the way that your government thinks the country should be run. However, to say that they attacked their own civilians on US soil is pretty outrageous: whatever happened to Occam's razor?

Adam, apparently you have not done your fair share of research. It is very easy to blow a conspiracy off as outrageous or ludicrous if you refuse to present yourself with the facts, including the possible intent(s). But, what is really outrageous is that people still believe that Islamic cavemen actually pulled off the 9/11 attacks without the help of the United States. There has been so much evidence which suggest that our government was behind 9/11, but yet people still are in denial and are determine to keep the rational citizens of America quiet.

[brookes]

I really dont think there is some conspiracy involved. Its clear that muslims did it. Osama himself declared it publicly on TV. We cant balme anyone but the policies of BUSH for all this. If at all there is a conspiracy we should have come accross by it now, as media/TV is quite active with its sting operations.

[Coll]

You claim that muslims were responsible and in the next sentence state that Bush is solely to blame..

I haven't seen any solid theories about a conspiracy, just circumstantial things. Most of these daft youtube conspiracy videos have been debunked in other youtube conspiracy videos. It's just a matter of common sense in some cases. For instance: Why would the government launch a missile into the Pentagon and claim terrorists flew a plane into it? Why not just say that terrorists fired a missile at the building?

[Mitch]

Well, there is reason to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, how stupid it seems, could quite be true.
From what I've seen, there is more evidence of this being a conspiracy than the doing of Islamic Extremists. You have really got to watch Zeitgeist, take it with heart though, some is a little extreme, but it gets you thinking. The guy who made it did TONS of research and investigation.

[Cattraknoff]

Well, there is reason to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, how stupid it seems, could quite be true.
From what I've seen, there is more evidence of this being a conspiracy than the doing of Islamic Extremists. You have really got to watch Zeitgeist, take it with heart though, some is a little extreme, but it gets you thinking. The guy who made it did TONS of research and investigation.

This. There is a good deal of evidence suggesting that it was a conspiracy. Not necessarily pointing towards the Bush administration doing it themselves, but I'd say it's quite certain they at least let it happen.

[Mitch]

Bush is a tool. He's not smart enough to do any of this. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some oil companies or banks (which Zeitgeist suggests) to encourage capitalistic growth in the US. AKA "Shock Economics"
Read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, it is also quite interesting.

[pSyChO mOnkee]

the conspiracy is pretty compelling yet its hard to make a real choice

[Cattraknoff]

the conspiracy is pretty compelling yet its hard to make a real choice

To believe the government were not involved, you would have to believe that a vast number of unlikely coincidences... were actually coincidences. And to top it off Bush and several members of the administration were caught in a lie not only after 9/11, but also in the justifications for the Iraq war. I for one do not believe in coincidence when it comes to politics, especially when several far-fetched ones all conspire to allow for an attack, especially when it has been used for so many attacks on the rights of people worldwide.

[Locke]

Bush is a tool. He's not smart enough to do any of this. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some oil companies or banks (which Zeitgeist suggests) to encourage capitalistic growth in the US. AKA "Shock Economics"
Read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, it is also quite interesting.

Ah! It explains everything, doesn't it?

[Mitch]

Yep, pretty much. It's a really good book! Thanks for suggesting it!

[hideip]

How can someone say it was a conspiracy? 3,000 something people dead for some sort of coverup? It doesnt make sense.

[Mitch]

hideip: it makes perfect sense. The US is run by large corporations, who don't give a rat's a$$ about people's lives, they only care about money. After the 9/11 attack, stocks from Bombardier (the company who made those planes) rose drastically, as did many other companies' stocks.
There is a ton of information out there that links 9/11 to a conspiracy.
Did you know that 3 towers actually fell??? Well...

[Cattraknoff]

How can someone say it was a conspiracy? 3,000 something people dead for some sort of coverup? It doesnt make sense.

Yes... Just like the burning of the Reichstag being a government cover-up didn't make sense to the populace at the dawn of Nazi Germany. Those terrorists were said to be communist, and it allowed the government to turn the country into a police state, and it allowed Hitler to sweep away his opposition. It was a method of increasing the government's power, it was a way to justify said expansion.

But no western government would ever do such a thing, right? The United States of America is an incredibly selfless and benevolent country that always does what is right, run by a just and righteous government. Sure they might have bombed a few million civilians in World War II, sure they might have atom bombed a couple of cities, and tested the effects of radiation on its own populace. They accepted Nazi scientists who performed experiments on Jews and others they didn't like after the war. They allowed much of the SS to remain intact, including many leaders, because they wanted their help if the newly evil Russians decided to come.

People need to realize that the American government is not quite as noble as it pretends to be. They have installed as many ruthless dictators as they've toppled (largely when they get out of line). If they don't feel any qualms about assisting in genocide worldwide, then why should they care about their average citizen either?

If they could gain near-absolute power by killing a few thousand people, what would stop them from doing so? Their consciences are clearly non-existent. What then? Perhaps a threat of revolution, although that can be avoided if your populace is too brainwashed, ignorant, and lazy to even attempt to know the truth. Nothing exists to keep them in line, and since there is nothing to check their ambitions, their greed, corruption must fester as a rule, as an absolute law of human nature. They serve their own purposes, and if a few thousand people dying will further their goals, there is little question as to whether they would do it.

[jpd1975]

The US has instigated wars in the past using "false flag" episodes. Since corporations took over as the major power brokers behind the scenes in the 19th century I'll name just 2 examples of many;
1. 'Remember the Maine' where a US navy ship blew up in Havana Harbor. The sinking was used by the newspapers (the mass media controlled by corporations) to whip the populace into a patriotic fervor and instigate a war against Spain. In the end the US ended up as an Empire, with cheap access to sugar coming out of Cuba and Naval domination of the Atlantic and Pacific. The is compelling evidence that the sinking of the ship was an ACCIDENT that was used to spur the nation to war for monetary gain.
2. The Gulf of Tonkin - The event that triggered full US involvement in the Viet Nam war. Again, a False Flag incident that was used by the Press and members of the Military Industrial Complex, again... money being the motivating factor. Viet Nam has plentiful sources of oil.
9/11... another sad example... and Cattraknoff, the sad truth is the American people are that ignorant, and it is very difficult for people to see such an incident and see it for what it is, even with such evidence... I'm reminded of a quote...

Apathy and evil. The two work hand in hand. They are the same, really.... Evil wills it. Apathy allows it. Evil hates the innocent and the defenseless most of all. Apathy doesn't care as long as it's not personally inconvenienced.

JAKE THOENE


I will leave it at that.

[Locke]

Jake Thoene? Some secret underground organization I haven't heard of?
"So, where could I find Jake Thoene?"
Furtive stares.
"We don't like your kind around here."

[Cattraknoff]

The US has instigated wars in the past using "false flag" episodes. Since corporations took over as the major power brokers behind the scenes in the 19th century I'll name just 2 examples of many;
1. 'Remember the Maine' where a US navy ship blew up in Havana Harbor. The sinking was used by the newspapers (the mass media controlled by corporations) to whip the populace into a patriotic fervor and instigate a war against Spain. In the end the US ended up as an Empire, with cheap access to sugar coming out of Cuba and Naval domination of the Atlantic and Pacific. The is compelling evidence that the sinking of the ship was an ACCIDENT that was used to spur the nation to war for monetary gain.
2. The Gulf of Tonkin - The event that triggered full US involvement in the Viet Nam war. Again, a False Flag incident that was used by the Press and members of the Military Industrial Complex, again... money being the motivating factor. Viet Nam has plentiful sources of oil.
9/11... another sad example... and Cattraknoff, the sad truth is the American people are that ignorant, and it is very difficult for people to see such an incident and see it for what it is, even with such evidence... I'm reminded of a quote...

Apathy and evil. The two work hand in hand. They are the same, really.... Evil wills it. Apathy allows it. Evil hates the innocent and the defenseless most of all. Apathy doesn't care as long as it's not personally inconvenienced.

JAKE THOENE


I will leave it at that.

One could also cite the WW1 sinking of the Lusitania (was that the ship?) which the government of the US knew full well would happen, and the German embassy had warned passengers in a newspaper article not to board. Its destruction was a large part of the justification for American entry in to the war, when the American government essentially allowed those people to die to further its own ambitions.

You might also cite Pearl Harbor, wherein the Japanese launched a "surprise" attack against the American fleet there, when in reality intelligence reports from Australia had tipped the Americans off, they simply refused to act. They allowed all those men and women to die because it would make a better show of it. Not to mention the ceaseless provocations against Japan herself that preceded the attacks (Japan was essentially forced into attacking).

Now, with all this happening... Would you (everyone else) still claim it utterly impossible that the US government might allow or encourage a terrorist attack on its own people?

[Locke]

The argument is debatable, yet conclusive evidence is lacking.
To bring up Occam's razor, previously mentioned in the debate, the best I can do is speculate without declaring an official theory or allegiance.

[octoparrot]

the real conspiricy is that the U.S goverment knew about 9/11 but delibratlly failed to prevent it. Lets not deny that Binlarden DID do it, because he addmitted it. what more evidence could you possibly need?

[Coll]

The Canadians are closer to New York than the Middle East is, they're responsible.

I can't think of any more conclusive evidence.

[Locke]

The Canadians are closer to New York than the Middle East is, they're responsible.

I can't think of any more conclusive evidence.

What about those phone lines the government tapped? Irrefutable evidence.