The US Government is behind 9/11

[Dawkinsrocks]

There are so many holes in the US adminsitration's account of the events of 9/11 you could use it as a sieve.
There were no interceptor aircraft on that day but there were on 50 other occasions that year.
The steel from the Twin Towers was shipped off to China before it could be examined.
The President told a meeting of how he felt watching the first plane hit the tower even though he was in a school and there was no public footage.
There was no wreckage at the Pentagon.
The Towers fell at free fall speed.
Tower 7 collapsed without being hit by an aircraft even though no other steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire.
Firemen and witnesses said they heard explosions on various floors
The air traffic controller who lost touch with the first plane and did nothing also did the same with the second and another plane at another time that was also being hijacked and abused.
Bush did everything to avoid an enquiry and then when pressure was overwhelming held a puppet enquiry he sought to block. He refused to appear before the enquiry without Cheyney.
The head janitor at the Twin Towers swears that there was an explosion in the lobby before the plane hit.
Architects say that a plane could not do the damage that was done.
The plane at the pentagon went into a hole 8 feet wide and disappeared even though an airliner makes a hole the size of a 5 storye building when it crashes.
There is no evidnce that one of the so called terrorist pilots was on the plane i.e no record of a ticket sold to him.
A passport of one of the 'terrorists' was 'found' in tact on the top of the rubble of the towers??

I could go on for ages but the fact is that there are hundreds of questions that point to the attacks as being instigated by Bush, Cheyney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and they have done everything to stop these questions being investigated.
They have however got even richer off the back of the ensuing oil crisis and they have conned the US into a massive star wars spending spree to bolster the US empire and they have used it as an excuse to attack Iraq to steal its oil.

This subject was openly debated in the Japanese parliament and every day more and more people are opening their eyes to the unbelievable.. That the US Government murdered thousands of its own people for political advantage.
Don't be too shocked though. The US Government have done this kind of thing many times to start or join wars that add wealth and depose left wing governments.

One day this crime will be exposed at a level that even those in the US who are blinded by patriotism will have to acknowledge. And if you think that the administration cares about the US public think again. One third of the homeless in the US are ex-military. You know, those guys the Government claim are heroes and have their full support.

When they have been used they are spat out.

The US adminsitration, in its own lax words, is for the 'haves and have yachts'.

Oh and BTW Goerge W Bush's grandfather had his factory closed down for contiuing to supply the nazis during the second world war.

 

[GenSeneca]

This belongs in the Conspiracy section, not US Politics.

There are so many holes in the US adminsitration's account of the events of 9/11 you could use it as a sieve.

And for all the shortcomings, it still makes far more sense than your claim of a conspiracy.

"I saw it on Youtube, it must be true!"

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

An interesting answer but not much of a rebuttal.
Funny how conspiracy theories are condemned when you disagree with them.
If conspiracy theories are so demonised why are there so many offences on the statute book that begin with 'conspiracy to...'?
One day the truth will come out and even you will have to come out of denial.

 

[Sihouette]

During the earliest days of the first year of Bush's administration, he begged his advisors like a child for an excuse to invade Iraq. They told him to be patient. Like a kid awaiting a trip to Disneyland he sent memos to his staff, "Is it time yet? Can we go?? Plllllleaaaasssee?!"

Then came 9-11 and the perfect excuse to invade.

Those are the facts. Many others support the theory that the intent was to invade Iraq no matter what. The oil was there and Bush, Cheney and their closest cohorts are all oil men. As bottom-line busine$$men, is their intent that difficult to cipher?

1. Get an excuse to invade, invent WOMD presence to justify. Have brother of fellow Bush businessman Salem Bin Laden agree to be the fall-guy for a fee..(note, when we have spy technology that locate a tick on a dog's butt from outerspace, still claim we cannot find Bin Laden's brother Osama.)

2. 9-11...no comment...

3. Invade Iraq using public funds.

4. Sieze oil reserves, establish puppet goverment and maintain a military presence indefinitely (see McCain's comments of staying there for 100 years..coincidentally the same amount of time predicted for the oil to dry up) to make sure said goverment panders to BigOil's every wish and whim...again...all at taxpayers expense.

5. Buy more yachts, continue to beat down alternative energy and when the fuss gets too loud from the public, offer nuclear as the "only viable alternative to oil" to shut them up.

****

Now, was 9-11 nefarious? Possibly. Hard to tell. Would I like to see it investigated as such? Certainly. Anyone would.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Good measured response from someone who clearly wants the truth.
It is a shame so many Americans wrap themselves in the flag and refuse to see their leaders as anything other than benign. It is a little like children who think their parents are perfect. Until they grow up.

 

[GenSeneca]

Good measured response from someone who clearly wants the truth.
It is a shame so many Americans wrap themselves in the flag and refuse to see their leaders as anything other than benign. It is a little like children who think their parents are perfect. Until they grow up.

What can falsify your claim about 9/11? Because if nothing can, its pure delusion.

Additionally, are there ANY conspiracy theories you do not believe?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is asignificant number of very serious questions surrounding the evnts of 9/11 that do not add up.
The top guys in the US administration achieved huge financial and political gain as a result of 9/11 and if they have nothing to hide they should and should want to hold an impartial and robust inquiry.
The fact that they won't stinks to high heaven and your continued ridicule of this without actually stating anything factual or logical is a great example of how they have gotten away with it.
SO FAR.
It is civil aviation law that when an airliner goes off course and does not respond to air traffic control fighters are scrambled to intercept it. This happens regulalry and mostly the airline gets back on course. On the one day in history when it was most needed civil aviation law was not complied with.
That is a fact. Senior airmen in other countries have said that it would be impossible for the same event to happen in their cities as the air liners would have been shot down before they arrived over a densely populated city if off route and not respondiong to ATC.
These are facts that maybe you would like to address.
Or maybe you would prefer to ask ridiculous questions like 'do I believe in all conspiracy theories?'
For the record no but in this case the evidence is impossible to ignore.
For most reasonable people.

 

[The Scotsman]

you need to get out more.....meet girls and get laid....get a blowjob!!

Have a cool brew

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And for the record, this is not a conspiracy theory.
When someone is convicted of conspiring to commit a crime it is becasue they were caught plannig the crime with others before the crime was actually committed. Otherwise they would be prosecuted for the crime itself unless of course they were only part of the planning stage.
The crime of 9/11 actually happened in very mysterious circumstances and in most crimes where this is the case the police start by looking at who benefitted from it.
So this is not a conspiracy theory. It is an accusation that the US administration was at least complicit in events that lead up to 9/11.
OK?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Could you decode this please?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

That last message was to Scotsman

 

[GenSeneca]

Or maybe you would prefer to ask ridiculous questions like 'do I believe in all conspiracy theories?'
For the record no

First and foremost, drop the attitude problem.

The question is not rediculous and let me explain why: There is a CT that you found to be falsifiable, thats good. Now please tell me which CT you think is bunk and then explain what about that CT made you realize it was nonsense.

This directly translate to 9/11 CT's. You need to seriously think about what compells you to believe there was a conspiracy, boil it down to a handful of very important points and post those. Saying "theres too many unanswered questions" is a logical fallacy - We don't understand the Universe because theres too many unanswered questions but that doesn't mean we think the Universe is a fake. Get my point?

SO take some time, think about your next post and pose questions that - WHEN ANSWERED - can lead you to believe 9/11 was not an inside job. Otherwise I could answer questions on minutia for eternity and you would just pose more with never any progress... Think about what would convince you this wasn't an inside job and get back.

 

[The Scotsman]

This directly translate to 9/11 CT's. You need to seriously think about what compells you to believe there was a conspiracy, boil it down to a handful of very important points and post those. Saying "theres too many unanswered questions" is a logical fallacy - We don't understand the Universe because theres too many unanswered questions but that doesn't mean we think the Universe is a fake. Get my point?

SO take some time, think about your next post and pose questions that - WHEN ANSWERED - can lead you to believe 9/11 was not an inside job. Otherwise I could answer questions on minutia for eternity and you would just pose more with never any progress... Think about what would convince you this wasn't an inside job and get back.

.........well put!!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

People

I have proposed many questions around 9/11 that deserve an answer.
You have not come up with a plausible answer to any of them.

You keep trying to rubbish the questions by categorising them as a conspiracy theory even though I have explained that the US government believes in conspiracy theories which is why conspiracy to defraud, to rob etc is a criminal offence.

I have even explained that what I am proposing is not a consiracy theory anyway as the conspiracy was not the end point. The crime of attacking the twin towers was and I believe the US Government to be complicit for lots of reasons.

Finally, your continued reference to falsifiablity might seem intellectual to you and it might even make some people think you have a point but it is just risible.

If I were in your shoes and so adamant that the US Governmenet is blameless I would be using my certain knowledge to explain why the airliners manged to get through the defences of the greatest power on earth and why civil aviation law was not observed on that one important date.

The fact that these questions do not seem to trouble you says a lot about you that is not good but to be fair it is the fingers-in-the-ears la la la attitude of many Americans.

I can't wait for your next pseudo intellectual attempt at rubbishing my posts but in the vain hope that you might actually address my points here they are in nice big letters and small words

1) THERE ARE LOTS OF VERY SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THE EVENTS OF 9/11
2) THE US GOVVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT TO AVOID AN ENQUIRY AND THEN TO BE UNCO-OPERATIVE WHICH IS VERY SUSPICIOUS
3) THE US GOVERNMENT BENFITTED MAMSSIVELY FROM 9/11 BOTH IN TERMS OF PERSONAL WEALTH AND POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR WAR ON IRAQ ETC
4) WHEN SOMEONE BENFITS FROM A TRAGEDY IN SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NORMAL FOR THEM TO BE SUSPECTED OF WRONG DOING AND INVESTIGATED.
5) IF THEY ARE INNOCENT IT IS NORMAL FOR THEM TO HAVE A COHERENT EXPLANATION OF WHY
6) THE ACCUSATION OF WRONG DOING I AM MAKING IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. IT IS AN A C C U S A T I O N THAT THE US GOVERNMENT WAS COMPLICIT IN THE EVENTS OF 9/11 FOR THE GAINS I REFER TO ABOVE.

If that isn't clear please let me know and I will try a drawing.

 

[GenSeneca]

You still have an attitude problem.

-------------------

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
-----------------------

So far, you're batting 1000...

Please provide proof for the following statements and substantiate the claims you have made:

The top guys in the US administration achieved huge financial and political gain as a result of 9/11 Who and how much?

THE US GOVVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT TO AVOID AN ENQUIRY AND THEN TO BE UNCO-OPERATIVE WHICH IS VERY SUSPICIOUS Which agencies conducted what inquiries, who avoided them and became uncooperative?

THE US GOVERNMENT BENFITTED MAMSSIVELY FROM 9/11 BOTH IN TERMS OF PERSONAL WEALTH AND POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR WAR ON IRAQ ETC
Like how? We are hurting badly.... No money and no support.

All of these seem to predicate your "accusation" and you have not substantiated any of them with anything remotely resembling proof or evidence.... Which is kinda necessary before anyone can take your accusations seriously. (Check with Dennis Kucinich if you need help)

If you decide to play nice, I will gladly share with you - in intricate detail - why our air defense measures were useless on 9/11 and why there was no stopping the attack once the planes were hijacked... As well as a wealth of other knowledge relating to 9/11 but I simply will not answer questions just because some arrogant punk demands that I do.

Additionally, you have failed to provide your account of what you believed happened on 9/11. You could believe there were NO PLANES for all I know, or that the Towers were brought down by Controlled Demolition... If you don't know and have not formulated any opinions on what happened that day, no amount of answers will change your mind.

So once again, take your time, put some thought into your next post and answer the questions relevant to your claims. If you would like to see some of my other 9/11 related answers HERE is one example. And please remember, lose the attitude problem.