# 9/11 Challenge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912 "2009-07-22T21:34:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/21 "2009-09-15T03:02:18Z")
Given that, I’d blame GHW first. Dubya has always been a bit of a drug casualty. I’m friends with some, but I wouldn’t rely on them to plan a picnic, much less a black op. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/22 "2009-09-15T03:03:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Stupidity does not remove culpability. Of course. Ignorance of the law yada yada. > [@](#): > > It does, however, argue against malice–and a conspiracy requires malice, (or, at least, intent). Very few drunk drivers set out to kill specific victims. Drunks are still held liable for their actions, but it would be silly to guess that most DUI fatalities are acts of premeditated murder. In the absence of motive, yes. IMO. these guys had plenty of motive. > [@](#): > > In the same way, it makes more sense that a number of insular agencies, who have long histories of jealously guarding what they know, simply followed years of tradition and failed to pool thier knowledge, thus missing an opportunity to identify and thwart an attack, than it does to believe that **those same agencies actually put aside their differences, on only one single occasion, pooled their knowledge, discovered the pattern and plot** , and then were told to sit back and ignore the attack, and then those same agencies invested all sorts of effort into painting themselves as idiots who were too stupid to share information–and not one person among all the participants has come forward in the last eight years to cry “Foul!”. [emphasis mine] It was not necessary for the these agencies to pool their info and then ignore it. All it took to ignore it was a willing executive. They didn’t cry “Foul” and accuse a popular wartime President of treason or at least stupidity? Much easier and a better career move to play stupid themselves. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/23 "2009-09-15T04:25:56Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > FTR, I consider myself a member of the 9/11 truth movement, however I don’t think that means you have to believe the towers were brought down with explosives or anything. > > I think anyone with serious questions about 9/11 that haven’t been answered is a truther. > > Can I offer an alternative explanation to 9/11? No. That is why I support an open investigation with subpoena power. > > For example, during the 9/11 investigation it was found that the landlord of some of the 9/11 hijackers was an FBI informant who informed on radical islamism. To my knowledge, he wasn’t allowed to testify about what he knew. > > Sibel Edmonds claims that she came across documents showing an informant in (I believe) Afghanistan warned us about an upcoming terror attack. She was (to my knowledge) left out of the 9/11 investigation. > > The US got something like 20 warnings from 14 countries in the months before 9/11. Why weren’t they followed up? > > I think its sad that status quo dogmatism has replaced legitimate skepticism, and asking serious questions like this makes you a conspiracy theorist. > > Now if (heavy on the if) you wanted me to offer unfounded speculation without serious evidence as to the who or why, assuming 9/11 was an inside job, I would guess it had to do with peak oil. I would assume certain people high in the administration realized peak oil, when it hit in the next decade (2010-2020) would lead to widespread domestic unrest and to a massive realpolitik power advantage to any country that had control over the world’s oil resources. So if (heavy, heavy on the if) 9/11 was somehow a MIHOP or LIHOP, it was probably done so that the US would have the domestic legislation to put down civil unrest due to peak oil (the PATRIOT ACT) and so that we would have a strong military presence in oil heavy middle eastern countries which we could use as leverage against nations like China. We have conquered Iraq and we have Iran surrounded. [http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911\_project](http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project) The 911 Timeline is a compilation of newspaper, magazine and TV stories from around the world before 911. It is damning because it shows there were lots of countries and lots of politicians who gave Bush warning. Some of it was pretty specific. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/24 "2009-09-15T04:33:23Z")
How about we just continue to point and laugh at Truthers, but not otherwise acknowledging their bullshit? . ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/25 "2009-09-15T04:37:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why: \*\*Al Qaeda’s own goals, and in order to give the neocons the political capital they wanted. They even said they wanted something of the sort, a “New Pearl Harbor”. \*\* Good try, but the neocons didn’t say they wanted a “new Pearl Harbor,” so this part fails factually. > [@gonzomax](#): > > The owner made a shithouse of insurance money. Another false one - Larry boy lost his ass on the buildings. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > You know, I’d love to participate, but I’ve been real busy performing surveillance on Kris Kristofferson and trying to find out where the Reptilians hold their meetings. You got Kris?!? I got stuck with Boxcar Willie, leaving me lots of time to post on SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/26 "2009-09-15T04:46:15Z")
[File:WTC Building Arrangement and Site Plan (building 7 highlighted).jpg - Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building_7_highlighted%29.jpg) Here’s the plan of the bldgs. WCT! fell straight down but managed to slip between 2 bldgs and nail bldg 7 without wiping out the post office.Yet WCT 1 and 2 fell straight down . ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/27 "2009-09-15T05:03:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Stupidity does not remove culpability. > > It does, however, argue against malice–and a conspiracy requires malice, (or, at least, intent). Very few drunk drivers set out to kill specific victims. Drunks are still held liable for their actions, but it would be silly to guess that most DUI fatalities are acts of premeditated murder. But when the drunk driver “just happens” to run down his rich uncle who made him sole heir just recently, perhaps we should be a bit suspicious. The neocons wanted something like 9-11, and they got it soon after Their Boy Bush got into office. > [@tomndebb](#): > > In the same way, it makes more sense that a number of insular agencies, who have long histories of jealously guarding what they know, simply followed years of tradition and failed to pool thier knowledge, thus missing an opportunity to identify and thwart an attack, than it does to believe that those same agencies actually put aside their differences, on only one single occasion, pooled their knowledge, discovered the pattern and plot, and then were told to sit back and ignore the attack, and then those same agencies invested all sorts of effort into painting themselves as idiots who were too stupid to share information–and not one person among all the participants has come forward in the last eight years to cry “Foul!”. But it doesn’t require that many people; just a few. Bush, and or two of his appointees could have stalled pretty much everything, especially after Bush already told them to lay off Bi Laden. If the people at the very top drag their feet, refuse to acknowledge the warnings given to them, little will be done. > [@CurtC](#): > > Good try, but the neocons didn’t say they wanted a “new Pearl Harbor,” so this part fails factually. Wrong; the Project For A New American Century stated that they needed one, and they got it. ---
**Author:** ![RogueAOV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecb155/32.png) [@RogueAOV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RogueAOV)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/28 "2009-09-15T06:47:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > HOW: Demolition charges (the planes were smoke and mirrors…nevermind details of how you place those demolition charges on buildings that big and no one notices…would just confuse you) I do not think that the planes were smoke and mirrors but if there was advance warning and Bush and co had allowed it to happen for political gain as discussed above, would it not make sense to ensure the towers fell at the same time. Any reasonable person would assume that crashing jumbo jets into any skyscraper would cause massive damage, either it would fall, or you would need to manually send in demolition crews in the aftermath and bring the towers down. I would assume that it would be largely impossible to repair the buildings after the attacks so either way, they have to come down, IF it was allowed to happen, it would make sense to do it all at once for the most appalling effect. Now to the question of how you would place those explosives, how hard would that be? it was a operating office building, so any tenant of the building could move equipment either tower, a large filing cabinet being moved into a office could be filled with anything and i doubt anyone would question or even notice it. If you had rented space in the tower, you easily could have engineers or tech people in rewiring or customising your floor etc, so it would not be very hard to get to the inner structure to either further weaken, or help the tower to fail. Another point i would raise is the statement that no conspiracy would work because someone would talk, that all depends on how many people it would actually take. America does have special forces teams who are prepared to do anything to ensure America’s success, so it would all come down to how far are people willing to go. Soldiers are trained to do without question and understand colateral damage. If we accept the premise of peak oil then that is a national security issue and unthinkable as it is the murder of thousands of American citizens to convince the public of an idea, it is quicker and easier than the alternative. The second the planes hit, we rightly wanted vengeance, and the basic questioning ability went out the window hence why so many people still think saddam had something to do with it, and that we found those WMD’s we were lied to about. The majority of a society doesnt like to think the worst or in a horrific situation such as 9/11 pause,reflect and question. It defies logic to think that by invading a country(or two) and engaging in any military action will make us safer. There is always going to be accidents and mistakes, innocents will get hurt, how many hundreds of thousands of iraqi’s and afghans have been accidently or wrongly tortured,killed,maimed in the cause of peace? if it perfectly acceptable to the American society at large for that many people to die in the cause of peace, and conversely it is perfectly acceptable to the people in control, that they are just collateral damage, it is not too much of a leap to think 2000 Americans is a acceptable lost to further American interests and dominance in the world. (not to mention the loss of our boys over there) America needs wars to provide a purpose for the massive military machine it has built up and it far too expensive to just sit and do nothing, we have to at the very least appear to be doing something with it and showing the world how much of a bad ass we can be, however this has went awry when history has shown us we are not good at a war against a enemy that can not or will not face us directly and allow us to use our overwhemling technological advantages over them you would think vietnam and korea would have taught us something, but because of how ineffective/arrogant saddam was in the first gulf war we thought it would be easy. America has continually done things in its own self interest in the past, overthrowing countries to ensure a friendly government has control, no matter how it adversely affects the native people, the only difference with 9/11 was it was us, and not someone we could ignore or dismiss. The truthers have more than enough red meat to go on to make a “solid” conspiracy [operation northwoods](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) for example, yes they didnt blow up that plane over cuba… but someone had to think or it, someone had to consider it, it was not too far fetched to not mention to the president, it was not too disturbing to consider lying to the American people about slaughtered American students etc etc. It is logical to assume that if that idea could be contemplated by the JCOS and the SOD then 9/11 is not inconceivable, being either a inside job, or being allowed to happen to achive a political objective to anyone wanting to find a easily plausible argument to explain a horrific terrorist act. Afterall it is always best to assume someone is in control of everything rather than bad things just happen. And the money angle can not be underestimated in coming up with a conspiracy theory and a book or movie. It is easy to make stuff up and get stupid people to believe without question, how else do you explain fox news still being considered journalism..or news for that matter. It should also be noted that those wacky CTers have been screaming about torture and etc etc for years and the MSM only really got worked up about it when Obama said he had no interest in going into the past and seeking justice etc.A broken clock is right twice a day… and anything the CTers get right..just proves the distortions even more. The Cters are alot like the republicans, they distort facts for their own purposes and convince the weak minded to whatever they say, and since they have no integriy nothing they say can be taken seriously, which means that when they are right… no one listens and instantly discounts and mocks anything which comes out of that camp whether its a good point or not and no MSM wants to touch it with a ten foot barge pole so there is not a effective counter point to the misleading argument so it spreads and sticks. But alex jones is out to make money, so he is a business man with questionable ethics, the republicans want to lie and distort basic facts to ensure profits for the corporate overlords.. when you think about it like that anything the republicans say or do i question, As i have said before, any information from the man..is not trusted by the Cters and vis versa (excuse the spelling..very tired here) ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/29 "2009-09-15T07:32:48Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Good try, but the neocons didn’t say they wanted a “new Pearl Harbor,” so this part fails factually. You are wrong: [Project for the new American Century](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) [pdf] - page 51: > [@](#): > > the process of transformation, > even if it brings revolutionary change, is > likely to be a long one, absent some > catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a > new Pearl Harbor. If you haven’t read this document, you absolutely need to. And you need to look at its signatories (last page of the PDF), including Wolfowitz, and the [signatories to the principles of the PNAC](http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), which include Cheney and Rumsfeld. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/30 "2009-09-15T07:41:09Z")
**teh jooooooooooz** ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/31 "2009-09-15T07:41:16Z")
> [@RogueAOV](#): > > I do not think that the planes were smoke and mirrors but if there was advance warning and Bush and co had allowed it to happen for political gain as discussed above, would it not make sense to ensure the towers fell at the same time. Nope; once they went that far they’d nearly guarantee they’d get caught. Not only would that drastically enlarge the number of people who would have to know, but it would require a massive undertaking. Large amounts of explosives being placed all over, crews strategically weakening structural members and so on; setting up a building like that to fall isn’t a subtle task. And doing so is an act of sabotage that can’t be mistaken for anything else; while looking the other way can’t be proven to be anything worse than incompetence. So they’d be greatly increasing their exposure; I can’t see even the Republicans being willing to publicly stand with them if it came out they actually blew up the buildings. Oh, I wouldn’t expect scruples to stop Bush and friends. And they are foolish enough that I could see them actually trying to do that. But if they had, they’d be lucky if the secret lasted even up to 9-11, must less past it this long. There’s also the question of IF they knew beforehand something was going to happen, just **how much they knew**. “Al Qaeda is planning a major attack” is a far cry from “Al Qaeda is planning to ram planes into the WTC on Sept 11”. All the plausible claims I’ve heard don’t go past fairly vague information like “major attack, soon, possibly with suicide aircraft”. And finally, it’s just unnecessary. What happened to the WTC is a perfectly plausible result of ramming such planes into them. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/32 "2009-09-15T09:58:08Z")
Erratum: “Project for the new American Century [pdf]” should read [Rebuilding America’s Defenses](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) [pdf]. I personally think any analysis of GWB-era US security/defense policy should be accepted from anyone who hasn’t read both that document, and the PNAC site. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/33 "2009-09-15T09:58:59Z")
I have no conspiracy theories at all. But if I may be indulged, I would like to mention a couple of things that I noticed in rewatching the broadcast of the 9-11-2001 **Today** show. With thirty minutes of the first plane hitting the first tower, Katie Couric said that President Bush said that he had had no warning of any possible terrorist attack of this nature. Those are not her exact words, but that is the general idea. My impression was that he was saying that he had never had any warning that terrorists might attack by flying into buildings. I think that this was later shown not to be the case. Also, at another time Couric announced that there were reports that several other planes had been hijacked. This fits in with something that was told to me by someone whose husband worked for the FAA (?). Then she said he couldn’t talk about it later. I don’t think there has to be anything involving my political enemies in planning this. But I do think there is a lot of really interesting stuff about it that we won’t be privy to for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/34 "2009-09-15T12:13:37Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I have no conspiracy theories at all. But if I may be indulged, I would like to mention a couple of things that I noticed in rewatching the broadcast of the 9-11-2001 **Today** show. > > With thirty minutes of the first plane hitting the first tower, Katie Couric said that President Bush said that he had had no warning of any possible terrorist attack of this nature. > > Those are not her exact words, but that is the general idea. My impression was that he was saying that he had never had any warning that terrorists might attack by flying into buildings. > > I think that this was later shown not to be the case. Kouric might have been speaking out of turn or merely restating that the media had no official warning about possible terrorist attacks. She’d have been hard pressed to get a quote from Bush since he was still at the school and likely being guarded heavily. > [@](#): > > Also, at another time Couric announced that there were reports that several other planes had been hijacked. This fits in with something that was told to me by someone whose husband worked for the FAA (?). Then she said he couldn’t talk about it later. So what? Rumors were rampant that day. There were reports that the other Federal buildings had been bombed on the CNN scroll, they turned out to be false. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/35 "2009-09-15T13:18:56Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > WCT! fell straight down but managed to slip between 2 bldgs and nail bldg 7 without wiping out the post office.Yet WCT 1 and 2 fell straight down . But it didn’t - WTC1 took out WTC5 and 6 also, and it finished off WTC3 that had been badly damaged in the collapse of WTC2. All the WTC buildings were destroyed. WTC5 and 6 were not towers, so they didn’t completely collapse to the ground, but still they were destroyed. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Wrong; the Project For A New American Century stated that they needed one, and they got it. That’s NOT what the document says. My complaint here was that the PNAC document never said they _wanted_ a new Pearl Harbor, it just described the pace of technology in defense as being slow unless there was some catastrophic event. It did not even _hint_ that they _wanted_ a new Pearl Harbor. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/36 "2009-09-15T13:48:57Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > **teh jooooooooooz** Pretty much what I’m seeing so far. Only one post has even remotely approached an attempt to answer the OP - by Der Trihs - and it was weak as an anemic kitten. Everything else is “blah blah, I didn’t read the OP but I saw 9/11 in the title so here’s some regurgitated conspiracy junk I read once.” ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/37 "2009-09-15T14:10:33Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Pretty much what I’m seeing so far. Only one post has even remotely approached an attempt to answer the OP - by Der Trihs - and it was weak as an anemic kitten. Everything else is “blah blah, I didn’t read the OP but I saw 9/11 in the title so here’s some regurgitated conspiracy junk I read once.” I agree. The “How” of 9/11 is beyond sorting out and, short of Cheney confessing, it won’t be. Debating new evidence is a waste of time. That said, given the rank and predatory duplicity of American corporate foreign policy since the Spanish-American War, it’s not a big jump for me to think that they’re at it again. That ain’t theory, that’s public record fact. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/38 "2009-09-15T15:32:09Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > That ain’t theory, that’s public record fact. Actually, what you wrote was neither theory nor fact. It’s basically conjecture, wrapped up in some hand waving. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/39 "2009-09-15T16:54:38Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Actually, what you wrote was neither theory nor fact. It’s basically conjecture, wrapped up in some hand waving. Yes, with regard to 9/11 and our resulting involvement in the Middle East, it is conjecture. WTF do I know? But given our well-documented imperialist record abroad coupled with obvious lies at home to make it fly politically, I think it’s a good one. Oh, I don’t know. Maybe we really are there to end terrorism and bring peace, prosperity and democracy to an oppressed people and oil, arms and drugs have nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912/40 "2009-09-15T17:51:01Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > How about we just continue to point and laugh at Truthers, but not otherwise acknowledging their bullshit? . With this foremost, coupled with Hanlon’s Corollary mentioned previously in the thread, the only conspiracy theories that barely pass the giggle test for me are the following: 1. I don’t think there was an over arching cover-up about pre 9/11 intel activities. If there was one, than any cover-up regarding tips, leads, etc… was to hide incompetence within the U.S.'s various intelligence and police organizations, not to hide evidence that the W administration wanted a mass casualty event on U.S. soil. 2. A contributing factor in the Towers’ collapse was sub-standard construction, both in design and fabrication. I recall their construction was plagued by overruns and difficulties and it is not inconceivable to me that serious corners were cut during their construction, in an effort to save money. Since there was no large construction litigation after 9/11 (save SwissRe’s attempts to class the attacks as one incident, rather than two), due to the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, I feel it is possible that potential construction defects may have been missed, potentially being so severe that, but for the defects, the Towers would not have collapsed. 3. Flight 93 was shot down at the behest of Vice-President Cheney, with W being completely out of the loop. I really can’t see this having happened. However, the things that made me go “hmmm”, were the convenience of the passenger uprising narrative at a time when we really needed some good news, the distance of some of the debris supporting in-flight break-up (which could have happened anyway given large control inputs at Vne during the cockpit struggle, true), and that revealing that Cheney was acting as Commander-in-Chief would bring up some thorny Constitutional issues. I don’t have a problem with the flight being shot down, if it was, but I can see many other people having a problem, and thus an initial lie by the Gov’t. 1. Osama bin Laden was not deliberately let go, but we prosecuted the Afghan war in 2001/02 in a manner that was likely to allow him to escape. Why? To preserve the national mood for vengeance that would be later applied to the decision to invade Iraq. I feel that if bin Laden had been captured, along with Mullah Omar, etc… and their heads placed on pikes on the White House South Lawn, the nation would not have wanted to go to war with Iraq. At that point, we would have caught and killed the guys we deemed responsible; why fight anybody else? For some inexplicable reason, it was deemed necessary to invade Iraq in the near future, and so the eastern passes into Pakistan were left to be guarded by the Pakistani Army, which was tantamount to letting the Al Qaeda senior staff go. Of course, you can say we didn’t go into Pakistan because it would have severely destabilized Musharraf’s gov’t and caused an Islamic revolt. Besides, we had OBL on the run and it was only a matter of time before the Air Force got him anyway… I find most of the other Truther assertions to be absolutely batshit insane. The above four hypotheses are, I feel, merely somewhat insane. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-challenge/503912.md?page=3)