The point is that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are causing many to ignore what took place after:
Nothing mysterious, the 9/11 conspiracy theories that have the US government taking part on it are hooey. There is plenty of evidence to show that there was a Conspiracy to get us into Iraq by **using **the 9/11 attack as justification.
I don’t think that’s really connected to September 11 conspiracy theories. It’s also long been clear that all the major reasons for the Iraq invasion were phony.
Wolfowitz wrote a term paper “explaining” that the U.S. needed a more responsible ally in the region and that Iraq, with a nearly modern infrastructure, a somewhat secular government, and lots of oil, was the ideal candidate to be that new ally. He then proposed that Hussein was such a horrible tyrant that overthrowing him would cause us to be welcomed as liberators and ensure that the Iraqi people would desire to become our best friends in the region. His comparison was based on a rather remarkable ignorance of how the Germans responded to our invasion in the Spring of 1945 accompanied by an utter ignorance of the history and beliefs of the Iraqi people. Based on his term paper, a number of men who were later invited by G W Bush to become important members of his administration wrote an essay expressing the idea that the U.S. should make it formal policy to try to bring Wolfowitz’s odd ideas to fruition. During the campaign for the 2000 presidentail election, G W Bush noted on multiple occasions that we should “do something” about Iraq.
Then, the WTC/Pentagon attacks occured and, without a shred of evidence, the administration began talking about the need to “stop Iraq” in light of those attacks.
Conspiracy? Nah. Just delusional nutjobs with too much power carrying out pipe dreams.
You’re saying:
-A lot of conspiracy theories, including a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories, aren’t anti-semitic?
-You were an adult, living in the US in 2004 and never heard of Richard Clarke’s book Against All Enemies?
-People who create misanthropic, paranoid, often racist fantasies about world events or world leaders and spend their lives obsessing over them are psychologically healthy?
I can believe the second one, because I often get sick of the media and spend some time trying to avoid it. The other two are harder to accept.
Can you cite that they’re anti-semitic? It is interesting if they have that in common.
I heard of that book, that’s it. During the period in question it was work, sleep, repeat for me. I never read it.
As for the third point- hmmm, maybe it would be better if you started a pit thread where we speculate about my mental health and the rest. I don’t think it is fair to characterize my starting a thread as ‘obsessing’ however. What I think I’m doing is reviewing this entire situation, from the ground up, as if I don’t know anything. It’s fine that you are such a tenacious opponent though. I appreciate actually.
Another person commented on the thread that he thinks Bush believed the theories he espoused. I doubt that. Do you think it is fair to characterize our entry into Iraq as driven by a conspiracy, or is it just a really dumb, really bad move?
If you really don’t know about it then it would be in your best interests in reviewing all of the linked threads provided earlier in this thread. This subject has been done to death here, and frankly folks are tired of the same old bullshit. Even aspect of 9/11 has been dissected to death, as well as all the silly little CT’s associated with it. Most of the CT’s don’t even make any logical sense, and every one of them falls apart under scrutiny. They have all been debunked…many several times…both here and by myriad other groups. Just like the JFK CT. And the moon landing CT. And the Roswell CT. Etc etc.
Not that it has anything to do with the supposed subject of this thread, but what do you base your doubt on, exactly?
Really stupid and bad move. No CT required.
-XT
:dubious: You’re posting this after responding to a post in another thread in which I explained it. You responded by quoting a bunch of anti-Jewish stuff and saying “I don’t see how that’s anti-Jewish.”
Did you “create misanthropic, paranoid, often racist fantasies about world events or world leaders and spend [your life] obsessing over them”? If not, why do you keep insisting I’m talking about you? It’s rather arrogant.
Bush is a moron who got us into a unnecessary war for all the wrong reasons . . . welcome to early 2004, at the very latest. Sorry if people aren’t reacting with shock and awe at this revelation that we’ve known for years and discussed literally thousands of times. You’re just a little late to the party. By the way, did you hear? Bush got replaced.
You’re serious about this? The “dancing Israelis” thing? The “Israel benefits from Iraq” thing? The “Larry Silverstein is Jewish” thing? You’ve never heard any of this before and are unfamiliar with the anti-Semitic overtones?
Well, I had given Try2B the benefit of the doubt, without having looked through that other thread. I thought he was just using the term “conspiracy” to refer to how the Bush administration used the attacks as justification for doing what they were itching to do anyway.
I was also a little surprised by Cisco’s harsh responses. Now I understand.
I lived down the street from the Pentagon when it was hit, and like most witnesses to the event, heard it but didn’t see it. I vividly recall two conspiracy theorists who were pretty easy to debunk.
A French website was pretty certain that the Pentgon was hot with a car/truck bomb, not a plane. A photo on his own website disproved this, though; the point of impact was on the only one of the Pentagon’s five sides that didn’t face a parking lot.
Someone who heard the plane was interviewed on TV news, sayong it was a missile, not a plane, because it sounded more like a missile than a plane. Unfortunately, he provided no military or professional credentials supporting his expertise in being able to tell the difference.
I’ve seen those interviews. IIRC no one even said it was hit by a missile, they said stuff like it looked or sounded like a missile. Although the funny thing is, it technically was hit by a missile, just like the WTC and the field in Shanksville.
No, the reporter Mike Walter said “I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, ‘This doesn’t add up, it’s really low.’ I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.”
He didn’t say it was a missile, or that it even looked like one. He specifically identified it as an American Airlines jet. His “missile” comment was just describing its behavior, as is obvious when the full quote is cited.
Conspiracy theorists quote only the last part, because they’re either a) lying by omission, or b) ignorant of the facts.
Someone had to lie by omission first, in order to spread the truncated quote so that people could be ignorant of the facts. That’s what’s so frustrating about these CTs. A 15 year old kid fucking around on Google will come across some really convincing stuff, and I wouldn’t blame him for being briefly overwhelmed by it all and accepting it at face value, but if you trace all this stuff, it necessarily had to start with a lie somewhere. These aren’t honest mistakes.
Like misquoting the firefighters, misquoting civil engineers and architects, being deliberately deceptive on the properties of metals in a fire, on how buildings collapse and fall, on…
Yeah…I agree. The folks who initially compile this stuff HAVE to know they are lying. I almost feel bad for (some) of the folks who wander into this board and start threads on this Amazing New Evidence™ or Shocking New Video(ARR), because they rarely get past the first page before their ‘evidence’ is shown to be silly and distorted.
-XT
One common thread in most 9/11 conspiracy theories relates the Project for the New American Century’s 2000 report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, and the claim that that 9/11 was planned to enable the powers that be to implement the recommendations in that report.
To this I’d say READ THE REPORT! It reads like a plan for the Maginot line after the fall of France.
It doesn’t mention Islam or Islamic terrorists. It mentions terrorists only three times (one of those time is referring Naval implications of Clinton’s missile attack on Afghanistan and one is referring to “space based” forces, quite how terrorists are going to get into space is not discussed). Afghanistan is only mentioned once (again only in reference to the Clinton-era missile attack, and what it means for Naval forces). Neither Al Qiada, nor Bin Laden, nor the Taliban are mentioned at all. Pakistan is only mention three times (and only in relation to their missile program). Missiles are mentioned over hundred times (no discussion of airline passengers with box cutters!), Korea over thirty times, Iraq twenty-five times. And remember this is published in 2000 AFTER the numerous attacks by Al Qiada on the United States, including the deadly attacks on US embassies (which are, it should be remembered, US soil).
This simply makes no sense, if the authors of that report genuinely planned 9/11, why the hell does hindsight not make them out to be ignored prophets, crying in the wilderness, but a bunch of out of touch cold-war warriors still fighting the last war ? Why were the hijackers (or fake hijackers, or cover stories or whatever the theory de jour makes the out to be) Saudi Arabian (a country only referred to as an ally), without any links to the PNAC’s boogee men ? (Except for aneasily debunked “czech connection”) After flawlessly organising the greatest consipracy in history they couldn’t reliably fake one, undeniable, black and white, communication intercept between Iraq/N.Korea/Iran and the hijackers ?
To add to what you said, griffin:
Conspiracy theorists like to claim that the PNAC documents says they “want” a new Pearl Harbor. Try2BComprehensive says it right over here. The document says nothing of the sort. It says:
Again, when reading in context, you see something wildly different than what the Conspiracy Theorists put forth. Getting “they wanted another Pearl Harbor” out of that is a bold-faced lie.
No, it said right there at the end of your quote that PNAC would “like another Pearl Harbor.”
Huh? That’s not what they meant and I should learn to read with greater comprehension and stop cherry-picking quotes? Just trying to think like a CTer. 
My theory about 9/11 is that the buildings were rigged with explosives and bought down with a control demolition.
My three major problems are that:
There was somehow a coincidental training exercise going on the same day where planes were supposed to be crashed into the Towers as part of the exercise. How would the Arabs have known that?
The black boxes have never been released. Part two of that same problem is that for some reason we had to show the terrorists that we could have the debris cleaned up and the he!! out of there post haste even though this fire chief protested and in retrospect, what sense did it make to do that other than to destroy evidence.
The Patriot Act was ready to go like later that day giving the government the power to do all kinds of invasive and un-American stuff that we would never had stood for if it wasn’t for the shock of 9/11. The Patriot Act makes the government party to every financial transaction and communication which is beyond socialism to me.
The put options and shares sold the days before.
Tower 7 falling the same way as the Towers when Tower 5 was closer and it didn’t fall. There was paperwork related to SEC investigations in Tower 7 that when it was destroyed just went away.
The day of, on 9/11, I had to go get my sons from school and I saw people walking, covered in white grainy powder. How did a building falling coat the whole area with a thick coating of grainy powder? When the building fell on Sixth Ave, there was nothing like that.
Lastly, just look at the videos. Just like that fireman said you see it coming down progressively, boom, boom, boom, boom like a stack. And stuff is flying far away, projected.
Your “theory” is wrong, not thought out at all (this is one step below “poorly thought out”) and offensive both to the truth and to the victims.
Let me ask you, Try2BComprehensive: Do you see anything in NYC_Chic’s post that can be thoroughly debunked by looking through this very thread? Does this give you some insight into how your 9/11 posts have been received here?
There was? Can you provide documentation for this exercise?
The data from the FRDs from both flight 77 and flight 93 were recovered and the data released. The Cockpit Voice Recorder was recovered from 93 and its transcript was released, not the audio, as in all airplane crashes. However, they did play the audio for family. The other boxes were never found.
The cleanup took months, but they wanted to do it as fast as possible because, as you may have noticed, it’s right in the middle of a very active financial district. Thousands and thousands of people worked and lived there.
No.
Which were investigated and found not to be suspicious (nor were they abnormal).
Building 5 wasn’t a tower.
So they destroyed building 7 to get rid of some SEC paperwork? Instead of just using a shredder, they try to get rid of it by setting up a situation where the paper would blow all over Manhattan? That makes no sense.
Concrete makes a lot of dust when it fractures, and there was a huge amount of gypsum wallboard in the towers. Those were the major sources of dust, and there was a lot of material to make it.
Just like a controlled demolition! Wait, no, it’s not like a controlled demolition at all.