Was 9/11 A Hoax?

[Manny]

Hardly a stretch?! WTF?! If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder? Please! If you're going to spin a story aboout conspiracies, at least make it believable.

Besides, if the powers that be were behind all this stuff, why did the president go into hiding by flying all over the midwest instead of returning directly to Washington. The puppet-masters could have raised Bush's popularity even more if they flew him directly to NYC or D.C. and let him give a speech with the smoking ruins in the background.

But don't you see? All of the painfully obvious holes in the conspiracy are themselves part of the conspiracy, to throw us off!

 

[Ed]

Who? Why? How? How was it kept secret?

 

[SirPhilip]

You know what key charges would be required? Did you see the prep of the buildings? How? Who? Why? How was it covered up?

I don't see how it isn't a reasonable assumption to say "key failure points inside the building could have been weakened or blown out completely" at a certain point in time. I'm not attempting to argue it was a controlled demolition, but you seem utterly convinced it is impossible - perhaps you should e-mail the news agencies spreading this around then? I don't think it was a controlled demolition as it makes little sense motive/risk wise except to ensure complete destruction. I just don't see this administration as particularly ethical, and it's actions should be investigated.

 

[Manny]

perhaps you should e-mail the news agencies spreading this around then?

There are no news agencies spreading this around that I'm aware of.

 

[SirPhilip]

And let's not forget the paranormal, hat-shaped object!!!(!)

...that etched the face of satan into the smoke with that gravity beam contraption.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't see how it isn't a reasonable assumption to say "key failure points inside the building could have been weakened or blown out completely" at a certain point in time. I'm not attempting to argue it was a controlled demolition, but you seem utterly convinced it is impossible - perhaps you should e-mail the news agencies spreading this around then? I don't think it was a controlled demolition as it makes little sense motive/risk wise except to ensure complete destruction. I just don't see this administration as particularly ethical, and it's actions should be investigated.

And it could have been brought down by the Flying Spaghetti Monster waving his noodly appendage in anger.

Now if there was actually any more credible evidence for one theory than the other, we would have something worth talking about....

Of course the theory that DOES have evidence is the one that suggests the crashing of planes and subsequent fire might have been responsible for the collapse. Wonder why that is?

 

[SirPhilip]

Seriously, read through their "evidence", even if you take it all at face value, is it more probable that the US Govt made some mistakes, or that the US Govt murdered thousands of its own citizens?

Brother Philip just threw it up there because he was too lazy last night and couldn't be arsed to search to get the bottom line (s) about the article - being generally uninterested in 9/11 crap. The apparent weight of it and that I read it on a major news stream made it stick out from the rest, not to mention unnerve me a bit. Forgive me.

 

[SirPhilip]

And it could have been brought down by the Flying Spaghetti Monster waving his noodly appendage in anger.

...being ridden by David Icke, clad in turqoise battlearmor!

Now if there was actually any more credible evidence for one theory than the other, we would have something worth talking about. Of course the theory that DOES have evidence is the one that suggests the crashing of planes and subsequent fire might have been responsible for the collapse. Wonder why that is?

Obviously that was the apparent cause, I just personally think that doesn't rule out the possibility that this administration would stoop to such tactics. As to a motive, defense industry spending? Conquest?

 

[Ladewig]

..
Obviously that was the apparent cause, I just personally think that doesn't rule out the possibility that this administration would stoop to such tactics. As to a motive, defense industry spending? Conquest?

But even if the hundreds of people necessary to pull off everything that happened on 9/11 were psychotic¹ enough to decide that this motivation was worth killing thousands of innocent civilians, why use airplanes instead of simple bombs in the buildings? Having four U.S. passenger jets hijacked with nothing more than box cutters put a world of hurt on the domestic airline industry. Some are on the verge of going out of business. Why would they hurt U.S. industries as part of their plan?

1 - there is no other word for it given that these people could not tell their friends, families, and co-workers to avoid airline travel on that day and to avoid business in D.C. and NYC. They were prepared to let their loved ones die for this unspecified motive.

 

[Ladewig]

Let's talk logistics, SirPhilip. How many people do you think would be needed to pull off everything that happened on 9/11 if the conspiracists are right?

In your answer, please indicate whether or not you are assuming hidden radio-controlled airplane controls in the passenger jets or if some other method was used to fly the planes into the towers.

 

[Elind]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

Just a question. Why do you say "and they aren't conspiracy theorists either"?

Do you expect them to come out and say "by the way, we are not conspiracy theorists, so you must take us seriously"?

We've already exhausted all this in another thread here somewhere.

 

[SirPhilip]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Just a question. Why do you say "and they aren't conspiracy theorists either"?

Because the integrity of this administration is on trial, and the American public are the jury. The approval rating of the president has been sinking lower and lower every month, and there is a reason for it. If it turns out there has been a great degree of corruption going on, the public will want to know how far that goes. As far as I can tell, It's a group of (academic and expert?) (well, minus that one guy) people who are proactive about it being investigated, it's asking the proper questions about abuses of power. That's my personal opinion because history proves this is necessary. As much as I find it unpalatable, if the president is giving off clues he's a sociopath, it is certainly possible Bush knew what happened beforehand.

Do you expect them to come out and say "by the way, we are not conspiracy theorists, so you must take us seriously"? We've already exhausted all this in another thread here somewhere.

That explains the masked irritation.

 

[bigred]

In Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

I think you're right: they aren't conspiracy theorists.

I also think the Holocaust never happened and we didn't land on no moon!

It's clearly all to cover up the aliens housed in Area 51. Dude.

 

[Ladewig]

As much as I find it unpalatable, if the president is giving off clues he's a sociopath, it is certainly possible Bush knew what happened beforehand.

I didn't mean them to be rhetorical questions.

If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder?

 

[davefoc]

1) It wasn't fire alone, there were two aeroplanes that hit them if you remember.

2) A fire fuelled by something like jet fuel burns hotter and faster than a fire fuelled by something like carpets and wood.

Try comparing it to the other times that skyscrapers have been hit by jet planes rather than just having fires in them.
Like this:

When an aeroplane hit an apartment block in Amsterdam. Imagine if there were floors above the impact point, what would be holding them up now?

And remember, this is a concrete building, and concrete is fire proof. The WTC was a steel framed building.

I think, in fairness, Johnny Pixels, it is important to mention the other obvious possibility here. The same people who planted the charges in the Twin towers also planted them in the Amsterdam apartment building.

I think what probably happened was that the conspirators blew up the Amsterdam apartment building just after the jetliner crashed into it as both a practice exercise and a diversion to cover what was their real target, the twin towers in NY, which they successfully destroyed eight years later..

 

[SirPhilip]

I think you're right: they aren't conspiracy theorists.

I also think the Holocaust never happened and we didn't land on no moon!

It's clearly all to cover up the aliens housed in Area 51. Dude.

Evidence?

 

[Elind]

Because the integrity of this administration is on trial, and the American public are the jury. The approval rating of the president has been sinking lower and lower every month, and there is a reason for it. If it turns out there has been a great degree of corruption going on, the public will want to know how far that goes. As far as I can tell, It's a group of (academic and expert?) (well, minus that one guy) people who are proactive about it being investigated, it's asking the proper questions about abuses of power. That's my personal opinion because history proves this is necessary. As much as I find it unpalatable, if the president is giving off clues he's a sociopath, it is certainly possible Bush knew what happened beforehand.

That explains the masked irritation.

It's not masked irritation, it's real irritation at this type of garbage you call logic.

You are the conspiracy theorist, and a pretty poor one at that. The sarcasm you read in this thread does a better job at it than you do.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

SirPhilip: Suppose we assume for the sake of conspiracy theory goodness that the White House wanted 9/11 or something like it to take place.

Wouldn't it have been much easier for them to channel funds to Islamic extremist groups, and/or impede CIA/NSA investigations of said loonies, and just let nature take its course?

What do you think their incentive was to stage 9/11 themselves, even if they did want a 9/11-type-event as an excuse for later actions?

 

[Skeptic]

And let me get this straight: the government behind the incredibly and utterly perfectly executed conspiracy of 9/11 is the SAME government behind the $400 hammers, $2100 toilet seats, and the DMV, right?

 

[aerocontrols]

Do you expect them to come out and say "by the way, we are not conspiracy theorists, so you must take us seriously"?

Dear Mr. President,

There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.

P.S. I am not a crackpot.