Popular Mechanics 9/11 Conspiracy Research and Findings

[Dr Newton]

WHo asked you to prove anything.

I believe you did when you asked me to "explain why the government would not do anything like this." Explain, in this context, is synonymous with "prove," "argue," etc.

I notice that when people are wrong on this forum, the posts they make tend to be incredibly long. Why?

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I'm just longwinded and often wrong.
minigreek, your saying that the evidence for it are events that nobody at all knows about? That's ridiculous.
Its not people with different opinions that are necessarily morons. Honestly, I think Dr. Newton is wrong a lot, but he's pretty smart. You are just a moron arguing a stupid, indefensible, position, and doing a poor job at it.

[Wizard Fuck]

Anyone that believes Loose Change is just a piece of shit. All of the conspiracy theories were debunked correct? I'm fairly certain they were on a T.V. show. One that comes to mind is the "Why did the towers fall down in stead of outward". And I think, don't remember for certain, they said that it was built outer strong? So the explosions path was easier to go down in stead of out? I don't know..

[NickDagger]

You'll never hear any of them admit it, they'll just be like "WE ARE JUST ASKING QUESTIONS" but the Gipper is right, the loose change videos had to change their claims so many times because they were epicly refuted that now the only one they are really sticking with is that Tower 7 was brought down by the government, which even if it was true, who gives a shit?

It's hard to take these people seriously when you respond directly to their claims and then they just go off on something else.

Like Chomsky said, you can bet your ass the government benefited from 9/11, but don't waste your time on these theories unless you got something, worthwhile, which frankly they don't.

Matt Taibi has a good take on it:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

[Edward Penishands]

the only thing i remember from loose change is something like "they found the passport of one of the terrorists, a booklet of paper somehow still intact, but they couldn't find the explosion/tamper/crash resistant black box on either of the planes."

  sssspppoooooooooooookkkyyyy

[frisco]

The way I see it, there is NO way that the 911 attacks were not orchestrated or callibrated in some way by the US government.

Look at the Pentagon? Evaporated plane? Also the other WTC building that just went down due to "fires" i think it was called WTC 7?

[max power]

beyond all the other reasons, i don't think the u.s. government is anywhere near competent enough to pull off such an elaborate scheme

[NickDagger]

The way I see it, there is NO way that the 911 attacks were not orchestrated or callibrated in some way by the US government.

Look at the Pentagon? Evaporated plane? Also the other WTC building that just went down due to "fires" i think it was called WTC 7?

Did you read this?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

If so, which claims do you reject? Did you read anything I posted above?

Seriously, we can go over each claim one by one if you want, but don't do a hit in a run "look I just know they did it okay?"

[Prison Wallet]

Explain to me why the government WOULDN'T pull off a cover up like this...  Especially seeing how it was basically the catalyst that gave Bush the excuse to go to war.  How would he and his administration ever have convinced this country to support a war without an event like 911 to use an excuse. Before 9/11, the last time anyone in this country had heard word 1 about Iraq was at the end of the Gulf War. Funny how we focused on Afghanistan for about 3 days before it was long forgotten and suddenly Iraq was the real terrorist with weapons of mass destruction that NEVER materialized.  Bush just wanted to finish what his father couldn't and without an event that he could defer to as a reason why to send troops to their certain death, he would have never been able to convince the American people to support this meaningless and pointless war.
I'm not saying anyone has to believe what I do, but I've read at least 50 books of the hundreds of titles about 9/11, and this is the conclusion I"VE arrived at.  Here's a good place to start...

The flawed logic in the conspiracy theories is this... If the Bush admin was savy/sophistocated enough to pull off 9/11 then why the hell couldn't they stage WMD in Iraq? That would have been easier than taking down the trade center and blowing up part of the pentagon. And it would have more solid support for the Iraq war than 9/11 alone.

9/11 made people pist off about radical Islam but by it self leaves open the debate on whether Iraq was a direct threat or was even tied to 9/11. Plus, if the Bush admin staged the whole thing and as a pretext to attack Iraq than why not set up Iraqis tied to Sadam rather than Saudis?

Sorry, not buying it. All science aside it just doesn't make sense. It almost makes sense, enough to draw in believers, but nah uh.

[Dr Newton]

I can't believe so much time and effort is being wasted in this regular thread. Some of you are typing out page after page without so much as one coherent sentence.

[Commercial D]

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

if there is a
here-












-to here text limit, how the fuck you expect anybody two sit through 2 hours of that garbage?
Well, I guess some guy who claims to be an architect who I have never heard of wants an audience of canadians to know he has his doubts. I'm sold.

[fuckingvegan]

9-11 was an inside job, we will never know the truth so it is pointless to argue about it. Anyone who thinks that the US government wouldn't kill innocent people needs to read up on their history a little bit.

[Commercial D]

if there is a
here-












-to here text limit, how the fuck you expect anybody two sit through 2 hours of that garbage?
Well, I guess some guy who claims to be an architect who I have never heard of wants an audience of canadians to know he has his doubts. I'm sold.

A disappointingly (but expectedly) immature response. Of the innumerable licensed architects in America, indeed the world, how many have you actually heard of? That's what I thought. I recommend you thoroughly peruse http://www.ae911truth.org before commenting any further on this topic.

You're in denial son. Vegan's right, this debate's pointless. Regardless, here's something to ponder that's more in line with your limited attention span:

[sergioflorez]

Expand Quote

if there is a
here-












-to here text limit, how the fuck you expect anybody two sit through 2 hours of that garbage?
Well, I guess some guy who claims to be an architect who I have never heard of wants an audience of canadians to know he has his doubts. I'm sold.

[close]

A disappointingly (but expectedly) immature response. Of the innumerable licensed architects in America, indeed the world, how many have you actually heard of? That's what I thought. I recommend you thoroughly peruse http://www.ae911truth.org before commenting any further on this topic.

You're in denial son. Vegan's right, this debate's pointless. Regardless, here's something to ponder that's more in line with your limited attention span:

vegan and commercial d with the 1-2. sleazy hurry up and rfid your kid!

thermite
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOq3HYRiG7Y

[NickDagger]

THIS EXPLAINS WHAT HAPPENED

[the j]

loose change and all conspiracy videos like it are just as invalid as popular mechanics "debunking" and probably just as governmently funded (manufacturing dissent). It is important to note that criminal negligence is just as implicating as a direct conspiracy the great thing for the government is that 911 truth kooks have succesfully made any discerning voice about 911 automatically  a "conspiracy theory"

michael ruppert did a 3 hour lecture on 911 with NO scientific or physical accusations and since he is a detective he went about it as a detective would have with documents readily availible to the public

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=michael%20ruppert&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

he was also one of the main voices bringing to light the dug trade of the CIA

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

9-11 was an inside job, we will never know the truth so it is pointless to argue about it. Anyone who thinks that the US government wouldn't kill innocent people needs to read up on their history a little bit.

"We will never know the truth" is a copout way of saying "I can't prove my point at all, but will not even look at the evidence that proves how ridiculous my ideas are." We do know the truth, you just don't believe it. Then you use ad hominem attacks to back it up "Anybody who thinks...." making it an attack on anybody who disagrees with you, not the point itself. I've read my history. I understand the history of government set ups and the government killing its own people. It never ever has gone down in this way, and every time shit like it has happened, whether its tuskegee, the Maine, or the Gulf of Tonkin, people always figure out when the government fucked up even when its far more disguised than this. There is no implication in our history the government would do something in such an outright way, and if they did, history would certainly tell us they wouldn't get away with it. It would come out in a leak, whether it was Mclellan, Richard Clarke, or some other new John Dean or Daniel Ellsberg.

[Sleazy]

the main problem i have with the conspiracy theory's that get put up is that none address the motive\complexity angle. in a normal crime investigation, a persons motive and ability to preform the crime are major factors but none of the conspiracy senerios i've seen address those and in the dicussions on here no one who is backing the conspiracys ever talks to these glaring problems with the conspiracy theorys and instead post up links to long videos.

the heart of the matter is if they decided to do it, is this what they would have done? and i don't see how any rational person can look at this and say yes to that question. do people really think that a goverment conspiracy like this would be done before the whole world and include not only no goverment officials but reporters from foriegn countrys? who'd be stupid enough to do something like that and how is it that none of the hundereds of non-goverment conspiritors have come forward?

[NickDagger]

I'm just gonna keep posting this, until someone responds to it:

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

That shit is hillarious and accurate. I just didn't want to pile on.

[artichoke]

That was fantastic.

[Wizard Fuck]

CHENEY: and blame it on the towelheads;

 

I lol'd

[Sleazy]

pretty much sums up the points of all my long rants on the topic

[mini greek]

I'm just gonna keep posting this, until someone responds to it:

Expand Quote

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

[close]

Actually, it was a much shorter convo....

"TERRORISTS"-Hey US government, we're going to fly planes into the WTC towers in New York, all you have to do is look the other way and make sure all your military fighter planes are hundreds of miles away all at the same time.  We know the fighters are never that far away, but this way we don't have to include anyone else in the plot.  ANd any hero that might launch those fighters to shoot down our planes, will not even have the opportunity with all the fighters spread out all over.

US GOV'T(BUSH, CIA, CHENEY, WHOEVER)- That sounds great and all, but are we goin to get more OIL outta this?

End of conversation...

[Sleazy]

but we are talking about conspiracy theory's that are commonly held here, who's putting that one on the table?

i'd agree that if there was a conspiracy that this was how it went down but all the conspiracy theory's i've seen involve overly complicated, ridiculous scenarios like the one Newton posted.

[mini greek]

but we are talking about conspiracy theory's that are commonly held here, who's putting that one on the table?

i'd agree that if there was a conspiracy that this was how it went down but all the conspiracy theory's i've seen involve overly complicated, ridiculous scenarios like the one Newton posted.

If you have read any books on the topic, the strongest theory to me suggests that our government basically turned a blind eye to the attacks.  They knew something was coming and did nothing because they saw it would enable them to pursue their goals in middle east(ie oil and Iraq).  This idea that the government was implicitly involved in the attacks on 911 basically shuts down these moronic notions of "fer the government to be involved, I reckon it would mean a lot of people would have to be involved, and I reckon somebody would spill the beans" (said in my best redneck accent).  Just because I believe the government was involved in 9/11, doesn't mean I necessarily believe bombs were planted in WTC towers or that it was actual military planes flown into the buildings.  I just can't believe that in this day and age, OUR government was completely clueless that something like this was being planned.  And if for 1 second they had an inkling that this might happen, and they did nothing to prevent it, then they are just as guilty/involved as the person who crashed those planes.  HAving said that, there are still a lot of things regarding 911 that seem fishy to me.  ANd if the government can be connected to 1 piece of the puzzle, then they obviously knew about the whole thing...

[Prison Wallet]

loose change and all conspiracy videos like it are just as invalid as popular mechanics "debunking" and probably just as governmently funded (manufacturing dissent). It is important to note that criminal negligence is just as implicating as a direct conspiracy the great thing for the government is that 911 truth kooks have succesfully made any discerning voice about 911 automatically  a "conspiracy theory"

michael ruppert did a 3 hour lecture on 911 with NO scientific or physical accusations and since he is a detective he went about it as a detective would have with documents readily availible to the public

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=michael%20ruppert&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

he was also one of the main voices bringing to light the dug trade of the CIA

Dude's entertaining and all but It's hard to take anyone seriously who uses an overhead projector in the 21st Century.

[cold budweisers]

hey ya'll i jus wanna take some time to say 9/11 - NEVER FORGET!

R.I.P.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

but we are talking about conspiracy theory's that are commonly held here, who's putting that one on the table?

i'd agree that if there was a conspiracy that this was how it went down but all the conspiracy theory's i've seen involve overly complicated, ridiculous scenarios like the one Newton posted.

[close]

If you have read any books on the topic, the strongest theory to me suggests that our government basically turned a blind eye to the attacks.  They knew something was coming and did nothing because they saw it would enable them to pursue their goals in middle east(ie oil and Iraq).  This idea that the government was implicitly involved in the attacks on 911 basically shuts down these moronic notions of "fer the government to be involved, I reckon it would mean a lot of people would have to be involved, and I reckon somebody would spill the beans" (said in my best redneck accent).  Just because I believe the government was involved in 9/11, doesn't mean I necessarily believe bombs were planted in WTC towers or that it was actual military planes flown into the buildings.  I just can't believe that in this day and age, OUR government was completely clueless that something like this was being planned.  And if for 1 second they had an inkling that this might happen, and they did nothing to prevent it, then they are just as guilty/involved as the person who crashed those planes.  HAving said that, there are still a lot of things regarding 911 that seem fishy to me.  ANd if the government can be connected to 1 piece of the puzzle, then they obviously knew about the whole thing...

but that's nothing new, even the administration admidts that they knew that an attack by osama was likely using comercial planes. they don't even try and deny that. there was some report circulating around that talked about it and I saw some footage of cunnalingus rice talking about it a while back.

there is also a similar conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor.

i don't have the time to go out and read\research every book\web-page on this. can you sumarize what evidence these books point too to back their claims?