Has the official explanation of 9/11 fallen apart?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Sep 20 2006, 09:46 AM) [snapback]322293[/snapback]</div>

Elvis was telling me about this just last week........

 

Intelligence has nothing to do with this topic.

This topic resembles the "Chemtrail" conspiracy theory. There's a rather large following of people who believe that the contrails of airplanes, or at least some of the contrails, are really "Chemtrails", which are formed when the US government dumps mind control drugs into the atmosphere for some nafarious purpose.

I kid you not. There is a very large following for this. They have "experts" and "scientists" who've written many books, articles, and papers on the topic. A google search for "chemtrail" will turn up almost 800,000 pages about the topic.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are just a variation on the same theme.

 

As long as we're discussing conspiracy theories, we might as well go whole hog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 20 2006, 10:16 AM) [snapback]322308[/snapback]</div>

Well dang!!!! After all these years . . . I never put the two together!!!!!

That explains why I thought I was going to die when my military transport plane flew through the jet wash of an F-14 Tomcat for which we were 'pathfinding' its way to Hawaii.

IT WAS THE MILITARY GRADE CHEMTRAIL!!!!

No way would I have been that frightened with being awoken out of a sound sleep by nothing more than a friendly thump from an F-14. -_- :lol:

 

Here's a good starting place to answer the question in the post title.

 

:blink: Wow this proves it, There are alot of WACKOs in this country! :wacko:

:huh: Makes you wonder if the whole global warming thing is true? Have you seen a film or read a book that causes you to believe in the whole conspiracy :blink:. I mean There is a very large following for Global Warming. They have "experts" and "scientists" who've written many books, articles, and papers on that topic too. I guess the bottom line is your going to believe what you want toh34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Sep 20 2006, 09:46 AM) [snapback]322293[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to see how the poll question was asked. In today's society, it is "closed minded" to say something CAN'T happen, or to be definitive about anything. I've learned to express myself carefully when well meaning people start to describe whatever superstitious "magical thinking" they have, whether its ghosts, aliens stealing cow anuses or crop circles. So I have to say things like "Well, I suppose its a possibility, and I wouldn't want to disparage your cousin's friend's brother in law who saw it, but I think I'll reserve judgement".

When what I really want to do is say "You moron! Get a hold of yourself and quit watching TV!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 20 2006, 09:48 PM) [snapback]322612[/snapback]</div>

Priusguy, we know you are ignorant, so you don't have to keep trying to prove it to us.

But it is utterly amazing to me that science, common sense, and logic can be subverted by a few wacko's, and the subject of this thread and the case AGAINST global warming are but two perfect examples.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Sep 20 2006, 10:43 PM) [snapback]322643[/snapback]</div>

Im really touched, that you where able to use my post as a example.. Thank you

Why coming from you kingofsthgix thats a com-pliment , becides I don't ignor anyone especialy someones ant...
:huh: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 20 2006, 09:48 PM) [snapback]322612[/snapback]</div>

No, for Global Warming to be a real conspiracy theory, it would need to be caused by some government entity, perferably the CIA, for the purpose of political or world domination, or at the very least for mind control.

If the theory was that the CIA was using nuclear powered heaters hidden in remote locations all over the world to heat up the atmosphere, then it would be a good conspiracy theory. However, the theory that Global Warming is caused by moms driving SUVs to soccer practice doesn't make for a good conspiracy theory.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 21 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]322749[/snapback]</div>

Marlin~

Thats it, youv'e hit the nail on the head.... The Goverments using that mind control gas to make everyone think that the world is global warming instead of cooling..

Someone notify the STAR! :lol:

 

I thought the "conspiracy" was supposed to be that the government engineered the attack. But the Wikipedia article referenced above only mentions theories that the government knew it was coming and let it happen (as some folks have claimed about Pearl Harbor) to have an excuse for a war.

Based on what's come out in the news, the government certainly should have known that al Qaeda was getting ready to pull off a terrorist attack. So the theory that they sat back and did nothing is not so far-fetched.

So what's your theory?

1. That the government knew "something" was in the works and turned a blind eye, hoping for an excuse to go to war.

2. That the government knew the Twin Towers were going to be brought down, and let it happen for the same reason as above.

3. That the government engineered the attack and those 19 hikackers were actually regular CIA operatives?

4. That the whole thing was space aliens and the government is covering it up.

5. That the government is simply not telling everything it knows about the hijackers.

6. That the government bungled the response on 9/11 and is trying to conceal its own incompetence from us (not a very successful conspiracy, since even Republicans are frustrated by the government's incompetence in pretty much everything it does).

It's hard to answer the question "Was there a conspiracy?" if you don't specify what conspiracy you are alleging.

I'd say number 1 is not so far-fetched; number 5 is possible; and number 6 is pretty likely. The others range from unlikely to crackpot.

 

The reason 9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories is that ignore the most likely explainations and create overly complex plots attributed to super secret nafarious organizations to explain events instead.

Lets just take the WTC towers for an example. The conspiracy is that Bush needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, so he had the CIA recruit some terrorists to fly planes into the WTC. And since planes couldn't possibly bring down the towers, the CIA planted explosives in the WTC towers to bring them down afterwards. The fact that the towers collapsed into their own foot prints is given as proof that they were brought down by a controlled demolition rather than by the planes.

First off, it is well known that 5 or so years earlier that terrorists set off a bomb in the basement of one of the towers. So there already was a precedent for terrorists using bombs in the WTC. So why bother with the planes? Why not just plant bombs? The planes added an incredible risk to the CIA's plans, don't you think, and with no good reason. What if the terrorists failed to take control of the planes? What if the planes were delayed for weather, or equipment failure? What if they missed? Wouldn't it have made more sense just to plant the bombs and blame that on terrorists? You could bomb a whole lot more buildings. Planes can be secured, skyscrapers can't. More terror with random bombings, don't you think? Why would the CIA add an element to their plot that only complicates things and doesn't add anything to their supposed cause?

Now let's think back on how the towers fell down. People have compared it to a controlled demolition, and there were some superfical similarities. However, if you look back at the videos, you will notice that the towers collapsed from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. When the buildings began to collapsed, the top fifth or so of the building (basically the part above where the planes hit) fell down, crushing the floor below it, which in turn crushed the floor below that, and so on, and so on. The floors were crushed from the top down with the floors at the bottom crushed last.

In a controlled demolition, they cut the columns of the building at the ground floor, causing the rest of the building to drop down and crush the ground floor, and then the 2nd floor gets crushed, then the 3rd, and so on and so on.

So, since the WTC towers collapsed from the top down, beginning at the point where the planes hit, that means that if it was a controlled demolition, then the explosives would have to be planted up where the planes hit.

Boy, that adds alot of unnecessary complexity to the plot doesn't it? Not only are they using planes that they don't need because they could have just bombed the place, but now they also planted the bombs way up high where the planes hit. What if the planes prevented the explosives from exploding?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Sep 20 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]322293[/snapback]</div>

A growing proportion of believers in a conspiracy theory might be true if you converted from believing what your eyes witnessed to believing something else.

It is even tougher after watching the tape al-Qaeda released on the anniversary of 9/11 with OBL celebrating his successful attack and showing him WITH one of the pilots who drove his plane in the WTC's. How do you explain that?

Maybe you think Bush and OBL are teaming up??

I love this by the way - and I thank you for adding some humor into each and every day.

I did not mean to conclude that you are one of these guys, are you? And if you are, what is your current theory du jour?

 

Jared 2: I think it was in a different thread that you said something about how it was inconsistent that the titanium engines vaporized but bodies were still identifiable.

I'll ask this here because this seems the more relevant thread:

So what's the point? Are you saying no planes actually hit the towers? That the video footage was faked, and the towers actually brought down by demolition?

Don't get me wrong: I believe that W is evil enough to murder 3,000 Americans in order to blame it on the enemy of the day. I just don't believe the clowns running things today are competent enough to pull off something as complex as a faked attack.

I believe the government's reaction to 9/11 was incompetent, and they probably do have a bit of a "conspiracy" to hide their own incompetence (the government is always trying to hide stuff, such as its own corruption). And I believe that W was delighted by the attack and used it cynically to push forward the war he already wanted to pursue. But that's a far cry from claiming the terrorists were CIA operatives.

I'd be interested to know specifically which version of conspiracy you believe in: one of the "mild" versions (that the government is withholding information after the fact) or one of the "strong" versions (that the government was actually behind the attack)? We see a lot of things eye to eye, but this seems to be one we don't.