Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking

[dropzone]

@palindromemordnilap

Your assertion that explosives can’t make a building fall into its own footprint is contradicted by every building demolition.

Who the hell said THAT? Please point to where anybody EVER said that, ANYWHERE. Of course a controlled demolition can cause a building to fall into its own footprint.

If you’ve got more recent studies that do a better job of explaining why the buildings would fall straight down instead of toppling over, or better yet, a pre-9/11 paper discussing how this could happen, I would like to hear about them. Otherwise your misguided opinion is worse than useless.

Beside what he already said, you can try thinking it through rather than parroting some tripe you found online. Pick up a ball. Drop it. In which direction did it fall? Down, right? The force that caused that is called “gravity” and, in a gravitational field, “down” is where the gravity pulls stuff. Not off to the side somewhere, but down. So though Newark may suck, it didn’t suck hard enough to overcome gravity and pull the falling towers toward it.

Whether the collapse was initiated by a big jet and subsequent fires, or explosive charges on the same floor, the structure was weakened and gravity, which had always been trying to pull the buildings down, had its chance to pull down the floors above the weakened structures. When those floors hit the stronger structure below it also collapsed, and the increasing load did the same to all of the floors below, with all of them going in the same direction. Down.

I would recommend you lose the smug tone until you learn enough to have something to feel smug about.

[ivan_astikov]

@Cisco

Yes, sometimes I do. The fideists, at least. Again, stop trying to make your religion analogy. You’re getting it backwards.

You have no problem labelling all “truthers” as either at best misguided, or worse, delusional, but do you accept that their beliefs still carry more weight than those of the average religious person?

[XT]

@dropzone

Who the hell said THAT? Please point to where anybody EVER said that, ANYWHERE. Of course a controlled demolition can cause a building to fall into its own footprint.

I think he misunderheard what I was saying here:

Even more sadly you haven’t been following along, as there have been several responses to the physics of why and how the buildings collapsed, and why not only are no explosives necessary, but that it’s the explosives themselves that are, as you put it, ‘physically impossible’.

I wasn’t saying that you couldn’t bring a building down using explosives…only that you couldn’t bring one down in the manner the buildings of the WTC were brought down using explosives. Several reasons for this. One is that his ‘squibs’ were supposedly going off top to bottom…which is exactly opposite to the way actual buildings are brought down using controlled demolition (but are explained fairly easily by the successive floors pancaking and pushing out debris as they fall).

Another thing would be the logistics of the the crash and detonation of the supposed explosives…flying a plane into a building full of supposed wiring for said explosives would be a Bad Thing, assuming you actually wanted them to go off. Same with all that jet fuel and other burning material. Then there is the timing, which really doesn’t make much sense from the ‘controlled demolition’ perspective…nearly an hour for Towers 1 and 2, 7 hours(!) for Tower 7.

Finally, there is the whole aspect of actually attempting to wire up said buildings for the controlled demolition…at a guess someone would have noticed all the guys lugging in explosives, wire, and digging into the walls to get to the load bearing members (and I’m not even going to get into the fact that there is no physical evidence…no explosive wiring, no explosive residue, no indications explosives were used in the building, etc etc)…

That’s what I meant by it being ‘physically impossible’ for the buildings to have been brought down by controlled demolition.

-XT

[akrako1]

@RedSwinglineOne

Popular Mechanics did a very nice point by point debunking of the conspiracy theorists claims.

Yeah, they’re a great Hearst Corporation publication. Just make sure you don’t actually follow up and read the point-by-point responses by academics in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”, which surprisingly, hasn’t been mentioned in this thread before. Odd, that nobody’s published a “Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking”, but then we could have a constructive, informed converstaion on the issue. But who would want physics to come in the way of policy anyways…

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders...

[dropzone]

@akrako1

Yeah, they’re a great Hearst Corporation publication.

And why would the publisher be relevent? Did the ghost of William Randolph Hearst have something to do with 9/11, like he did the Spanish-American War a century before?

(looking at your link) Griffin’s a THEOLOGIST? Cripes, I’m more qualified than he is.

[Cisco]

@ivan_astikov

You have no problem labelling all “truthers” as either at best misguided, or worse, delusional, but do you accept that their beliefs still carry more weight than those of the average religious person?

No, they don’t, and I’m not going to let you carry this discussion off into oblivion until you paint yourself into a corner and start repeating the first few points that you made, and were debunked, again. Provide a comprehensive alternative theory of what happened on 9/11/01 using facts, evidence, and logic, or admit you’ve got nothing. Shit or get off the pot, ivan.

[XT]

@akrako1

Yeah, they’re a great Hearst Corporation publication. Just make sure you don’t actually follow up and read the point-by-point responses by academics in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”, which surprisingly, hasn’t been mentioned in this thread before. Odd, that nobody’s published a “Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking”, but then we could have a constructive, informed converstaion on the issue. But who would want physics to come in the way of policy anyways…

Did you know that you simply linked to a book review on Amazon? And THIS is your idea of a counter cite?

As for your request to debunk the debunking debunker…ask, and ye shall receive, sayath the XT…

Debunking David Ray Griffin

As a professor of mine once explained, the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory is the ability to make good predictions. Last week I made a post on David Ray Griffin’s statement that AA77 did not have airfones, and reasoned that this was most likely explained by the fact that American Airlines removed their airfones from their 757s in March 2002, and the “researchers” cited by Griffin did not properly clarify whether the phones were there in September 2001, as opposed to the 2004-2005 time period when they wrote their book.

So it was not really that much of a surprise to read this admission by David Ray Griffin on 911 Blogger today:

My mistake, like that of Henshall and Rowland before me, was to assume that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had always been, not simply about 757s at the time of the query, in 2004.

But the latter was evidently the meaning. Elias Davidsson, an Icelandic member of the 9/11 truth movement, sent me a story from February 6, 2002, which said: “American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.” (5) Davidsson also reported a 1998 photograph of the inside of an AA 757 showing that it did have seat-back phones. (6)

Of course, with their ever moving goalposts, Griffin goes on to argue that this doesn’t make any difference since the calls never happened for other reasons.

As I said, the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory, is the ability to make good predictions. I can almost always predict the logical fallacies that conspiracy theorists will make. This is not some special gift of mine, it is simply a matter of applying consistent logic to proper research. For them, predictions are meaningless, because they will always draw the same conclusions no matter what evidence they base it on. If the evidence points one way, it was a US government conspiracy, if the evidence points the exact opposite way, it still was a US government conspiracy. That is the essence of conspiracy theories.

Some more:

Debunking David Ray Griffin

February 25, 2008 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed

  David Ray Griffin, who is a THEOLOGIAN, insists that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

 However, as Ryan Mackey points out in ” On Debunking 911 Debunking,” which can be found here, and downloaded in either PDF or word format, David Ray Griffin’s understanding of physics is questionable, to say the least. Unless otherwise indicated, any information in this article is from “On Debunking 911 Debunking.” 

 Granted, as Ryan Mackey himself admits, his paper only deals with the third chapter of Griffin’s book, “Debunking 911 Debunking,” but Ryan Mackey does raise an excellent point in the introduction of his paper:  If he was able to find enough errors in just ONE chapter of David Ray Griffin’s book to write a 100+ page paper, just how many errors are there in the rest of the book?

 On page 17, Ryan Mackey points out an error of Griffins regarding the fireproofing.  Ryan Mackey correctly states that the fireproofing above and below the impact floors is irrelevant as once the steel in the impact zone was sufficiently weakened to the point where they could no longer support the floors above them, the towers were going to come down.

 On page 19, Ryan Mackey states that Griffin and one of his sources insist there was no energy to dislodge the fireproofing on the impact floors.  This, of course, is ridiculous; what was the kinetic energy from the planes- chopped liver? Third grade physics tells you that once the planes hit, that energy had to go somewhere.

 On page 20, Mackey shows us that Griffin’s statement that “steel’s an excellent conductor of heat” is false.

 Finally, on page 44, Ryan Mackey points out an obvious flaw with Griffin’s statement that after falling only one story, the upper 16 floors of WTC 1 would have very little velocity and momentum- the problem is DRG fails to account acceleration due to gravity, which, for the earth, is 9.8 m/s².  This quote from page 45 of Ryan Mackey’s paper “On Debunking 911 Debunking” shows the correct physics:

The guy (David Ray Griffin) is a nutball.

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought.[1]

-XT

[Cisco]

@akrako1

Yeah, they’re a great Hearst Corporation publication.

@dropzone

And why would the publisher be relevent?

It proves that virtually everyone in the world except akrako1 and a few thousand of his closest truther friends were in on it :rolleyes:. The misanthropy and paranoia required to believe some of this shit is incredible.

[Cisco]

@xtisme

The guy (David Ray Griffin) is a nutball.

-XT

Undoubtedly. And the only other academic the CTers have on their side is Stephen Jones who, before 9/11, was famous for . . . (gimme a drum roll folks, you’re gonna be shocked) . . . his work in cold fusion and trying to prove Jesus visited the Americas.

[XT]

Shocking…

(It’s funny how that seems to always be the case)

-XT

[Valgard]

@palindromemordnilap

Well, I have been following along and I know quite a bit about buildings. I also know that no bulding has ever fallen this way before and have never seen or heard of a paper by any physics experts who predicted or even theorized that a building might fall this way prior to 9/11. So any response you might point to would be trying to explain it after the fact.

On what basis do you claim to know quite a bit about buildings? For example:

-Do you have a degree in structural engineering or some related field such as architecture or materials engineering?
-Do you have practical work experience in structural engineering or a related field?

I’ll also ask the same question concerning your knowledge of demolitions. What is your educational or practical/work experience in that area that lets you draw meaningful conclusions?

I’m not sure why you’d expect a physics expert to write a paper on “What would happen to a skyscraper if a large jet was rammed into it” any more than I’d expect to find a paper on “The structure of the atomic nucleus” in an ASCE publication.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

My suspicion originally arises from the idea that other major American wars seem much more obvious in their motivation.
Pear Harbor- people can talk LIHOP about this all day, but the fact is that the Japanese Imperial Army was out there hoping to claim as much of the Pacific etc. as possible. No way Pearl Harbor was the last we were going to hear from these guys.
And shortly after, Nazi Germany declared war on USA. Rather clear-cut, no?
Korea- Is there a Communist army attempting to invade South Korea, or not? I think there was; I think we stopped them.
Vietnam- Is there a Communist army attempting to invade South Vietnam, or not? I think there was; I think we didn’t stop them. I think we did kill some 3 million people trying, which put a damper on further ambitions IMHO.
Afghanistan, Iraq- wtf???

To answer Cisco’s question, I’m 36. Have I been traveling around the world, or am I a foreigner? Nope, I’m pretty darned American. Unusual tidbits that might explain my bizarre perspective on this subject: I don’t watch TV. I’ve had a number of consuming personal projects over the last few years- none of it terrorism, mind you! And I spent quite some time working like a dog to pay for everything. I’m taking a serious look at the subject only just now. Weird huh?

If I actually am a crank, I’m a rather high-functioning and crime-free one if I do say so myself.

But we were talking about conspiracy theories. I think some people are confused that I entertained the demolition theory. I did. But it didn’t last. There are still plenty of suspicious aspects of the 911 attacks IMHO, but I’m going to need a new reason to entertain that theory again in the face of the reasons against it.

I don’t know if I can clarify enough to satisfy everyone. The scope of this is actually bigger than what I can be comprehensive about :o The fact that the motive for the invasion of Iraq seems to pre-date 911 ropes the 911 attacks within the net of suspicion surrounding the Iraq invasion. And the Afghanistan invasion- you’ll notice I switch back and forth, as for me the jury is still out on what the ‘fact of the matter’ is in either case.

If I see proof- or a convincing enough simulacrum- a thing becomes ‘a matter of fact’. If it is widely believed, it may be ‘the official version’, yet the facts may remain unknown, and it isn’t a ‘matter-of-fact’, yet at least.

Here’s Cisco on conspiracy theories:

9/11 conspiracy theorists have worked really hard to establish the strawman that there is an “official story” of 9/11, presumably created and spoonfed to us by the government. The idea is laughable.

There’s something unique about conspiracy theories that mere conspiracies lack. They’re usually illogical, require large numbers of people to keep secrets, require paranoia, usually started by and mostly followed by males, very, very often implicitly or even explicitly racist, very often require misanthropy to be accepted.
Lack of credible evidence is a key factor in a conspiracy theory.

Let’s look through this lens at our entry into the Iraq theatre of war:

spoonfed by the government: I posted a link to the agency that ‘sold’ the Iraq war to the public early in the thread
illogical: Hmmm, Iraq caused 911? The people will adore us as liberators? They have WMD’s, precisely because all the experts say they don’t?
Large number of secret-keepers: All participants in 911. Every member of the Taliban, Al Qaeda. High-ranking lawyers who can’t remember jack shit once they’re on the witness stand, but I digress.
Paranoia: They’re going to attack us with WMDs!!! They’re going to attack us with WMDs!!!
Started by and followed by males: Started by Cheney and Wolfie? Followed by Bush, the Armed Forces, et al.?
Racist: Well, it is a war of our ‘Christian Nation’ vs. their ‘Islamic Nations’…
Misanthropy: I’ve searched the web, I haven’t found a single example of this in all of history :rolleyes:
Lack of credible evidence: Goddamnit you dopers!!! Post LINKS to the PROOF that AFGHANISTAN is CULPABLE for 911

xtisme’s opinion of our entry into the Iraq Theatre of War?

Really stupid and bad move. No CT required.

Some other quotes from this thread:

GIG0buster:

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.

Marley23:

It’s also long been clear that all the major reasons for the Iraq invasion were phony.

The invasions seem to fit the mold of conspiracy theories. If I could get a sufficiently fleshed-out, yet credible explanation for our entry into both theatres of war, I’d be happy to try to debunk them, or fail trying.

[Marley23]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

My suspicion originally arises from the idea that other major American wars seem much more obvious in their motivation.

Whereas this explanation of a government conspiracy to start a war that even the government didn’t pretend was involved in the attacks is… simple?

The invasions seem to fit the mold of conspiracy theories. If I could get a sufficiently fleshed-out, yet credible explanation for our entry into both theatres of war, I’d be happy to try to debunk them, or fail trying.

Afghanistan was where AQ was based, and as a great deal of evidence (some of which you asked for and I described) links Bin Laden to Al Qaeda and to the attacks. Iraq was Bush’s white whale. That’s about all there is to it.

I find it a little surprising you don’t know who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even is given that he’s been in the news for so long. He apparently was the actual planner for AQ. Bin Laden had money and, perhaps, leadership skills, and Mohammed is alleged to have handled the operations of things. He was waterboarded more than 100 times and I am sure he made up a lot of his confessions. He essentially claimed responsibility for every terrorist attack out there, including that time you came home in the dark and stubbed your toe. People started calling him the Forrest Gump of Terrorism. While I wouldn’t accept a lot of what he said, I do think he was involved here.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Marley23

Whereas this explanation of a government conspiracy to start a war that even the government didn’t pretend was involved in the attacks is… simple?

I think pretending that Iraq was involved in the attacks is precisely what they did. I’m thinking of the countless times Bush mentioned Iraq and 911 in the same breath, although parsing the statements doesn’t quite add up to a statement of ‘Iraq did it’. It was always ‘Iraq and the terrorists’ or ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ (even though it isn’t the same group as Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda).
FWIW, I don’t think I’m overreaching to say that this thread at least is reaching the consensus that the motive for the Iraq war pre-dates 911. Do you disagree? If not, maybe the issue simply comes down to how to label it. It appears the situation is that a group of guys who were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq got their excuse. What’s in it for them? Just what is the program that includes conquering the ME?

I found Cisco’s link to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 informative. It seems toppling Saddam was more or less an official government policy years before 911. At the same time, it seems trumped up. They seriously though Saddam was going to twist the Oil for Food program to fund some kind of super-army? They really believed Iraq had WMDs? This was a conquered country wiggling around under the sanctions imposed on it. The NIE before the war declared ‘Iraq no threat’. The conflicting information and my basic common sense leave me full of doubt on this issue.

Afghanistan was where AQ was based, and as a great deal of evidence (some of which you asked for and I described) links Bin Laden to Al Qaeda and to the attacks. Iraq was Bush’s white whale. That’s about all there is to it.

I find it a little surprising you don’t know who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even is given that he’s been in the news for so long. He apparently was the actual planner for AQ. Bin Laden had money and, perhaps, leadership skills, and Mohammed is alleged to have handled the operations of things. He was waterboarded more than 100 times and I am sure he made up a lot of his confessions. He essentially claimed responsibility for every terrorist attack out there, including that time you came home in the dark and stubbed your toe. People started calling him the Forrest Gump of Terrorism. While I wouldn’t accept a lot of what he said, I do think he was involved here.

Can you cite the evidence for me?

I did treat this subject of KSM a page or two back. Yeah, he confessed to pretty much everything short of the crucifixion of Christ. I was under the impression that this guy had been discredited as an actor in 911. Am I wrong?

Speaking of actors in 911- part of my problem is that it is difficult to get any credible information. Frankly I’m still not convinced Bin Laden has anything to do with it. I’m not aware of any serious hard-core evidence that places the blame on anyone in particular. Deductions from passenger rosters? How does that go? You know, rhetoric aside, the actual evidence linking 911->Bin Laden->Al Qaeda->Afghanistan, and particularly Afghanistan’s blame. Please enlighten me, maybe I am just ignorant and this will easy to ‘cure’.

[CurtC]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

FWIW, I don’t think I’m overreaching to say that this thread at least is reaching the consensus that the motive for the Iraq war pre-dates 911. Do you disagree?

I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. Iraq had been seen as a rogue, unstable country since they hit the USS Stark with an Exocet missile. Saddam suddenly went from our military ally to our enemy.

Many neocons had been dissatisfied with Desert Storm, thinking we should have “finished the job” by going into Iraq then. Between then and 2003, Iraq was like a festering sore. Saddam kept violating the no-fly zones and not cooperating with the weapons inspectors. The neocons really believed that if we “liberated” Iraq, we would be seen as heroes there. And I think they really believed that Saddam just had to have been working on WMDs somewhere.

I did treat this subject of KSM a page or two back. Yeah, he confessed to pretty much everything short of the crucifixion of Christ. I was under the impression that this guy had been discredited as an actor in 911. Am I wrong?

Yes, I think you’re wrong. KSM is really believed to be the guy who planned 9/11. Are you confusing him with Zacarias Moussouai? He’s the one discredited as an actor in 9/11.

Frankly I’m still not convinced Bin Laden has anything to do with it. I’m not aware of any serious hard-core evidence that places the blame on anyone in particular.

Hard-core evidence regarding AQ is hard to come by. I think bin Laden helped organize the group, helped fund it, and was made aware of the 9/11 plans, but probably didn’t actively participate in it.

[Marley23]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I think pretending that Iraq was involved in the attacks is precisely what they did.

They slurred the attacks and Iraq together when they could, yes. But if the whole thing was a government plot, why weren’t any of the hijackers Iraqi? You’d think that would not be a hard thing to do - how hard could it be to make a fake Iraqi passport? They tried to work a link between an Iraqi colonel and Mohammed Atta for a while, but that’s doing it the hard way.

FWIW, I don’t think I’m overreaching to say that this thread at least is reaching the consensus that the motive for the Iraq war pre-dates 911. Do you disagree?

I think it did.

I found Cisco’s link to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 informative. It seems toppling Saddam was more or less an official government policy years before 911.

The Iraq Liberation Act was hot air. It supported regime change as a policy, but did nothing to bring it about. In terms of follow-through it was on par with “honey, I’ll clean the garage next weekend.” Everybody knew Saddam was bad, nobody cared enough to do anything about it because of the trouble involved.

Can you cite the evidence for me?

Here’s the video.
A separate transcript:

Bin Laden: “(…inaudible…) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (…inaudible…) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.”
Sheikh: “Allah be praised.”
Bin Laden: "The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn’t know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. […]
Bin Laden: "They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient.

“The difference between the first and the second plane hitting the towers was twenty minutes. And the difference between the first plane and the plane that hit the Pentagon was one hour.”

@Try2B Comprehensive

I was under the impression that this guy had been discredited as an actor in 911. Am I wrong?

Completely.

[XT]

@Try2B Comprehensive

Afghanistan, Iraq- wtf???

Well, Afghanistan at least is fairly easy to puzzle out why we went in. You sort of had to have been following along with how things transpired after 9/11. All of the evidence pointed to al-Qaeda as being the prime suspect (leaving aside all the CT’s we been discussing). We knew that ObL was most likely at least the figure head in charge of financing and support for the operation. Further we knew that ObL and much of the AQ leadership was in Afghanistan and had been for years. Demands were made to the Taliban to basically arrest and turn over the AQ leadership, including ObL. These demands were not met. Thus…war.

I’m not seeing why it’s a big mystery for you, to be honest. It’s pretty straight forward and cut and dried.

Iraq…well, that’s a whole other can of worms. As I said up thread, I think that Iraq was simply providence for Bush et al. They saw an opportunity to turn the 9/11 tragedy into something they could use to further their own ends…those ends being to take down a hostile (to the US) government who was sitting on top of a large percentage of the worlds oil and to create a government more congenial to the US and our interests (for basing rights and such). Again, it’s not really all that mysterious as to why we invaded Iraq…and it’s not all that hard to follow that Bush et al simply took advantage of the 9/11 situation in order to push through their agenda.

Lack of credible evidence: Goddamnit you dopers!!! Post LINKS to the PROOF that AFGHANISTAN is CULPABLE for 911

You are asking for a strawman. No one is claiming that Afghanistan was culpable for 9/11. We attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban were giving shelter and support to the people who were responsible for 9/11. We threatened them with war if they didn’t turn over the AQ leadership including ObL…they called our ‘bluff’…and penis ensued. QED.

The invasions seem to fit the mold of conspiracy theories.

How?

-XT

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

I would like to give a well-considered response.

But I need the details: Al Quaeda-> Afghanistan. There are ‘training camps’? What are the facts-of-the-matter of the relationship?

[RogueAOV]

I am currently watching a documentary i thought i would share and ask for opinions on.

Personally i think they main problem with any conspiracy theory is the main talking heads of the conspiracy who are just so stupid when it comes to stating their claims. Now i havent finished watching this documentary so i cant say it is entirely rational, but so far it seems to be.

Nothing p*sses me off more than outrageous claims, i have heard everything from missiles to planes being projected onto live shots on tv to cover up the missiles that where used, to remote control planes, after off loading passengers in Denver.

Why can’t a conspiracy be alot more basic and obvious.

So far the documentary (assuming it is based on fact) argues the paper trail and has not got to the events yet. I havent heard anything which does not sound credible to me so far.

My general outline of what happened on 9/11 is this.

Terrorists seized control of 4 planes.
Three did what they were suppose to do.
One was shot down due to the fighter pilot not knowing they were retaking the plane.
I do think they was bombs in the twin towers, in the basements on the main structural supports which would cause the tower to fall.

Now logically, assuming the powers that be had a rough idea of what was going to happen, And i do not think there is any real argument that there were no warnings previously, it would make sense to ensure the towers fell. Firstly the shock value and the dramatic images help sell the story and distort evidence. Secondly the damage to the buildings would have made them almost impossible to bring down later by a controlled demolition without the possiblity of damaging near by buildings… so you might as well get the advantage of doing it at the same time. Thirdly it would have looked bad if America had to bring down the towers itself after the fact,it would have affected the American mentality of rebuilding, if it took months to ready the building to come down etc.

I can not think of any reason why a great deal of people would have to be in the conspiracy to allow it to happen. I do not think Bush knew,He is too stupid to be trusted not to say the wrong thing.(even if my theory is correct…he still did manage to say the wrong thing)

I would imagine that we have “black op” teams of whomever who are prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure American supremacy in the world.

One thing which does bother me, is why is there such a need from the non believers if you will, to attack the 9/11 truthers( i am not one just a guy who thinks what he thinks and doesnt want to attack anyone physically or otherwise) The only reason i can think of to why with all the evidence that is out there(which is not bat sh*t insane) that it was allowed to happen is the fact the government would allow its people to die for its own political agenda.

Which i think is a much bigger straw man than the entire 9/11 theory. Without free health care thousands die a year, with a FDA which doesnt do its job well more die, with a under funded this and that…more people die. What are the beliefs as to why it was not a conspiracy? other than the disbuted evidence, which quite frankly either side can pull evidence out all day which refutes the other. Any evidence a truther shows is discredited due to the fact…they are a truther… and any evidence from the “rational” side is from “the man” who did the " conspiracy. I just do not understand the need to refute the theory unless you were personally involved by the events on the day, i am not suggesting CIA plants post in the SDMB, but to a lost love one who died or was otherwise affected by the events of september 11th.

Saddam hussein was switching from the dollar to the euro for oil sales, which some have argued that would weaken the dollar and put at risk the dollar not being the world currency anymore, and i have heard it argued that it was this reason alone that Iraq was such a high priority target .

The evidence that is coming out that the CIA was being prodded strongly by dick cheney to make some connection between al queda and iraq and to use tactics used in the korean war against our soldiers to get false confessions, strongly suggests that afghanistan was a sideshow…to get into iraq, and i have not heard one reason(mainstream media) why we invaded iraq that is based in fact, WMD’s…nope al queda…nope…

From all the angles i have read,heard and watched this saga over the past 8 years it seems to me the most logical explanation is.

They know far more than they are telling us, they were prepared to take it as far as required to get what they wanted donem and the plan fell apart when the wars didnt go as well as predicted.

We were suppose to liberate iraq from a thankful people, who would welcome us with open arms, and sell their oil to us nice and cheaply excluding all the other problems states we rely on for oil, and basically have access to a huge amount of basically free(after war repiratrions to us) oil and break the backs of all other oil producing nations and strong arm opec to make the globization of American interests easier.

The only part of this argument which seems outlandish is killing your own civilians to set it in motion… and as i mentioned above, the people do not seem to be the primary concern of the Bush cheney white house.

[Cisco]

Circles.