Was 9/11 A Hoax?

[LostAngeles]

Just out of curiosity, I hit the quote button on my post and it spit back everything that wasn't in quote boxes, so wow. Yeah. Just... wow.

 

[SirPhilip]

Just out of curiosity, I hit the quote button on my post and it spit back everything that wasn't in quote boxes, so wow. Yeah. Just... wow.

Works fine here. You really need to keep track of all those arms, one slip and a blacklisted sequence of words could be slammed forth and mean the death of your credibility among some of the howlers here.

 

[SirPhilip]

Hatred? No; I'm just amused. You don't rate high enough for my hatred. Sorry.

"It" was the Bush administration, obviously, not me. We'll just pretend that's my fault and move on. We also need to work on those insults, starting with like um, a point.

But, I have to remind you again that you did not re-elect Randfan. You may have re-elected someone else, but that's your problem. If you had the bad taste to re-elect Bush, then go find a punching bag or a pinball machine or something, because your bad judgement is really not my problem, except inasmuch as your actions helped make this planet more unpleasant for me.

Just wait till text gets smaller, your eyes get yet even worse, and the subject is yeti manned flying saucers.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans.

*That* is considered hardly a stretch?

We assume an evil motive, assume a psycopath, assume that everyone around him and everyone involved in it is just as bad, and then it is easy to believe that there is a massive coverup over 3,000 dead (Americans and others).

Sure. I can see now how that all logically follows.

 

[SirPhilip]

*That* is considered hardly a stretch?

We assume an evil motive, assume a psycopath, assume that everyone around him and everyone involved in it is just as bad, and then it is easy to believe that there is a massive coverup over 3,000 dead (Americans and others). Sure. I can see now how that all logically follows.

It logically follows to strongly suspect - not believe (although I could forgive anyone for having made up their mind at this point). It elevates the possibility to likely that major wrongdoing has been done behind the public's back. What that is, remains to be investigated.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

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 - [snip].

But you do say here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1422202&postcount=24

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition.

If you aren't arguing it was a controlled definition because you cannot explain how they managed to get all those charges set (or explain why they wanted planes), then the "suspicious" way the towers fell have no relevance. Either you are suggesting that it was controlled -- in which case there are a lot of questions -- or you aren't, in which case the way it fell is a red herring that means nothing.

 

[NeilC]

You posted the question "was 9/11 a hoax". Everyone has answered no and provided good reason.

You on the other hand have provided zero reason to believe it is, other than a complete lack of knowledge of demolition, an "odd" feeling, some foggy general suspicion of Bush and some links to crackpots who think everything is a conspiracy.

You clearly believe this rubbish but don't expect others to, unless you want to provide some evidence that isn't laughable.

 

[SirPhilip]

You posted the question "was 9/11 a hoax". Everyone has answered no and provided good reason. You on the other hand have provided zero reason to believe it is, other than a complete lack of knowledge of demolition, an "odd" feeling, some foggy general suspicion of Bush and some links to crackpots who think everything is a conspiracy.

Justify this statement.

You clearly believe this rubbish but don't expect others to, unless you want to provide some evidence that isn't laughable.

I posted an article - admittedly impulsively, for others to comment on. The reaction was a bit disappointing, but at no time did I defend the article, because, simply put, I hadn't researched it enough to properly weigh it (my entire reason for posting it here). I base the assumption on ethics, not evidence. If there was evidence, concerned posts like these wouldn't be necessary. I understand that it is going to be hard for a lot of people to come to terms with the mounting ethical dilemma of his magnitude, that in hoping for a demoracy you have supported people who have done nothing but infringed upon and harmed others, that continue to do so, and have no sense of guilt over this, and may indeed have orchestrated it from the beginning. Don't think for a second that I don't hope it turns out that you are right. I'd like nothing more than to see a modern democracy in Iraq, and to believe Bush is a courageous person willing to sacrifice his political career for the potential of stability in a region fraught with conflict and suffering - I'm sure others here feel the same way, despite the real circumstances and red flags now. It's the same reason countless others buy into con artistry. Tell people what they want to hear and they will let their better judgement down. Bush isn't healing or helping anyone, including himself.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I base the assumption on ethics, not evidence.

Without evidence -- until there actually *is* evidence -- there is no ethical dilemna.

You are not just putting the cart before the horse, you're signing a 20 year lease and building a cart factory in the hopes that one day the small mammals you see might one day evolve into a horse-like creature.

 

[SirPhilip]

Without evidence -- until there actually *is* evidence -- there is no ethical dilemna. You are not just putting the cart before the horse, you're signing a 20 year lease and building a cart factory in the hopes that one day the small mammals you see might one day evolve into a horse-like creature.

If that's the way you feel, let's just agree to disagree. My apologies again if you and others felt my assumption was wrongheaded.

 

[davefoc]

SirPhilip,
Do you understand that the majority of the people that routinely participate in this forum have a negative view of Bush?

There was a thread on whether Bush was the worst president of all time and there a lot of people who thought that was at least plausible.

It is far beyond the scope of this post to even begine to summarize the wide range of issues and actions that Bush is routinely criticized for.

And yet among all the people who routinely participate in this forum even among those with very negative views of Bush, I don't think you will find one that sees any significant possibility either that Bush or somebody in his administration was involved with causing the 9/11 disaster.

Of course this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does go to one of your premises which seems to be that people just can't bring themselves to believe that Bush is an unethical, incompetent president and therefore aren't open to the idea that he might have overseen the attack. The problem with this is that a whole lot of people on this forum do think that Bush is unethical and incompetent and not one of those people think that he had any involvement with the 9/11 attack.

It seems to be the case that every significant historical event today is accompanied by wacky conspiracy theories. So the existence of a wacky conspiracy theory is absolutely no evidence that there is anything to the wacky conspiracy theory since regardless of the underlying facts wacky conspiracy theories will always be created and disseminated.

But in this particular case, the wacky conspiracy theory is even less plausible than usual as far as wacky conspiracy theories go. That is the main reason that people in this forum even with their antiBush biases don't find it credible.

So, you don't seem to have been happy with the responses to your posts about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why? You asked what people thought about some of the craziest theories ever put forth. They responded with reasons why they thought they were crazy and they responded with links to articles debunking the theories. What were you looking for from the participants in this thread?

 

[gnome]

I gave up on the idea of these conspiracy theories when I realized that none of the supposed methods of faking it were easier than what the official story says, and all of them left more questions unanswered than the supposed discrepancies in the official account.

When occasionally thinking dark thoughts, I wonder if this administration were deliberately less than vigilant, because they knew that a major terrorist attack would let them sail their agenda through congress... but that is the worst I imagine of them. Most of the time I discount even that idea.

 

[davefoc]

Al Franken and I assume others make the case that the Bush administration failed to follow up on important leads and ignored advice to be very worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack. I found the theory plausible but didn't follow up much to see what the evidence for and against the idea was.

I think there is no question that the Bush administration was thinking a lot about stars wars defense systems when they took over and they were insufficiently concerned about the possibility of a terrorist attack. So I suspect they deserve some blame.

I think the FAA is the number one culprit however. There was plenty of reason to think that securing the flight deck doors was an important thing to do and they did nothing on the issue. I think the managment of the airline companies that didn't secure the flight deck doors and lobbied the FAA against rules that would have required it deserve a whole heap of blame too.

I guess the board of American Airlines didn't agree though since they gave the CEO about $20,000,000 in benefits including a lifetime country club membership when he stepped down after the attacks. But not to worry the US government gave them millions in loan guarantees after the attacks so I guess they could afford it.

 

[bob_kark]

Al Franken and I assume others make the case that the Bush administration failed to follow up on important leads and ignored advice to be very worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack. I found the theory plausible but didn't follow up much to see what the evidence for and against the idea was.

If you're looking for a good book on the subject, I'd recommend Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies. It is a bit one sided, due to the fact that it is written from his first hand experience. There are also detractors who try to poke holes in the book. However, I tend to take the word of a man who worked in the Department of Defense for 30 years and served under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bushie.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

However, I tend to take the word of a man who worked in the Department of Defense for 30 years and served under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bushie.

I tend to think such a man would know where a lot of bodies are buried, and would walk a very careful line between revealing things he wants to reveal, and not revealing things that if revealed would harm the interests of the USA or the Powers That Be within the USA.

 

[Ladewig]

Justify this statement.

I posted an article - admittedly impulsively, for others to comment on. The reaction was a bit disappointing, but at no time did I defend the article, because, simply put, I hadn't researched it enough to properly weigh it (my entire reason for posting it here). I base the assumption on ethics, not evidence.

There are sites on the 'net that claim that the December 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people was not the result of an underwater earthquake but rather was the result of an underwater hydrogen bomb. Would you have us investigate the possibility of Bush ordering a bomb be placed where it would do the most damage because he is, as you put it, a psychopath?

 

[bob_kark]

I tend to think such a man would know where a lot of bodies are buried, and would walk a very careful line between revealing things he wants to reveal, and not revealing things that if revealed would harm the interests of the USA or the Powers That Be within the USA.

Well, when it comes to the subject at hand, he reveals quite a bit.

 

[SirPhilip]

SirPhilip, Do you understand that the..

Point taken.

 

[TjW]

(snippage)
I think the FAA is the number one culprit however. There was plenty of reason to think that securing the flight deck doors was an important thing to do and they did nothing on the issue.

Why? The policy since the mid 60's was to give a hijacker whatever they demanded.

I don't think it was a well-thought-out policy, but given that that _was_ the policy, reinforcing the cockpit doors wouldn't have made any sense.

 

[davefoc]

Why? The policy since the mid 60's was to give a hijacker whatever they demanded.

I don't think it was a well-thought-out policy, but given that that _was_ the policy, reinforcing the cockpit doors wouldn't have made any sense.

There was good reason to believe that the policy needed to be changed.

There was an aircraft that went down off the coast of Africa, possibly because of a codkpit take over by somebody bent on suicide and there was an incident over Paris where there was an attempt to fly an aircraft into the Eiffel Tower I believe.

In addition, Israel has had armed pilots and lockable flight deck doors for awhile. My thought is that they know something about what terrorists might do and we might have followed their lead.