This site contends that it is:
http://www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm
What’s the straight dope on this?
I read this with a very large grain of salt. This is not to say that I disavow all the assertions made, but I substitute bungling for outright complicity by the Bush administration. Any further than that takes us into GD or Pit territory, so I’ll stick to my factual response as a critical reader.
That response is: where are the goddamned footnotes? That’s all you need to know in most cases to separate sanity from raving on the Internet.
Okay, so these guys are contending that the folks that are running the Bush Administration secretly masterminded the plot which caused the deaths of over 3,000 people on 9/11/01. These same people, just a few years later, launched an invasion of another country that they were certain had WMDs, only to discover that the country didn’t have any at all! 
Now, don’t you think that if these guys were clever enough to arrange the 9/11 attacks, they’d be smart enough to plant WMDs in Iraq? And that if they showed that kind of remorseless lack of concern for American life that they’d be more than willing to impose a news “blackout” of Iraq while they systematically wiped out much of the population in order to surpress any insurgents, and thus ensure the free-flow of oil?
Do you think that there’d be any polls which put Kerry neck and neck with Bush if the election were held today if these guys held that kind of power?
This is the part that gets me. Heck, I’m still surprised we didn’t plant any WMDs in Iraq – that seems to be much easier than masterminding a vast and infinitely complex conspiracy framing 19 Arabs, right down to the fake passports and flight lessons.
The OP is welcome to read this report:
http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-0911.shtml
…then consider such questions as, "Why would this site, which is simply a compilation of air crash data, have any vested interest in lying about the circumstances and aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks? Who was flying Boeing 767 N612UA, which can be clearly seen impacting the South Tower of the World Trade Center in numerous photos and videos, including pictures on the linked site? Why would planes be used to strike the World Trade Center, yet a missile used to strike the Pentagon? If it was a missile which struck the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers who were aboard American Airlines flight 77, and where is Boeing 757 N644AA, which was transporting them? Why are there numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial jet, flown low enough to actually clip light poles, impacting the South Face of the Pentagon at high speed? What was the point, in this supposedly faked attack, of crashing Boeing 767 N591UA, making up United Flight 93, in a rural area of Pennsylvania?
As for the assertion that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers was a ‘controlled demolition’, please review this page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
Then ask onseself such questions as "Why would PBS, or Dr. Eager, have a vested interest in lying about the means by which the WTC building collpased? Why would complete demolition of the WTC be necessary in any given faked scenario, since two planes impacting the towers and killing many hundreds of people would be more than sufficient to present the picture of a terrorist strike? Why did the collapse of both towers commence at the points where the planes impacted, as can be clearly seen by anyone who has access to videotape of the collapse?
Are you sure that site isn’t satire?
This kind of tips me off:
Well, it’s more or less the only story here in America…
What El Kabong said. But when in conspiracy theory land:
5/ All documents can be faked
4/ All witnesses can be bought off/fooled/are in on the conspiracy/can be “disappeared”
3/ All video/photographs etc can be faked.
2/ Never attribute to error what could have been deliberate
1/ Above all, (to paraphrase Wilson and O’Shea) the lack of evidence of a secret conspiracy is evidence of a secret conspiracy because you wouldn’t expect there to be any evidence of a secret conspiracy. After all, it’s secret.
This does make a lot of sense but then the collapse of building 7 in a similiar fashion doesn’t make much sense since a plane didn’t crash into it.
Another poster indicated that this may be satire, that poster may be correct.
No, but it had lots of flying debris fall onto it, and when the towers came down it was subjected to the same kinds of conditions that an earthquake would impose on it. I don’t know, but I’d be willing to bet that buildings in NYC do not have to be earthquake proof.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. The Bush Admin’s failure to plant WMDs in Iraq must be a huge disappointment to conspiracy fans everywhere.
It is true about the insider trading right before 9/11 though. There was a documentary that examine this side of the conspiracy theory and deduced that people knew people who knew people who help orchestrate the attack. Those people therefore starting selling shares without even knowing what was really going on, kind of like Chinese Whispers. They even examined the possibility of watching the stock markets in order to predict another attack. If anyone has a cite on this or better info let me know.
Just checked out a new book from the library called
The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin.
I believe it.
Way too many things that didn’t add up.
Including, but not limited to Bush claiming he saw the first plane, why he sat and did nothing; the material from the buildings take away quickly so they couldn’t be examined, etc.
I believe they allowed it, not made it happen.
It will be many many years before it ever is allowed to come out, however.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
The bungling of such would probably go something like this:
<U.S. drops baggie on floor>
U.S.: “Oooh! Oooh! What’s this, then?”
Iraq: “It’s a sandwich.”
U.S.: “Blimey! Whatever did I give the wife?”
credit belongs to Monty Python
To answer the thread title literally, yes, September 11th was definitely a conspiracy. I don’t think for a minute the Bush administration was in on it, but it IS a conspiracy.
Well, here is the mistake. It doesn’t account for the very real gripes Al Qaeda had with the US. Also, it wasn’t 19 hijackers, there were probably a good number of other AQ agents and members who helped in the planning and preparation stages. Also, I doubt Osama masterminded it. That is a gross misunderstanding of how cell organizations work.
That would explain why Anthrax ended up on Capital Hill and Florida and comp tickets to the Redskins were found in Iraq.
This one always gets me:
What stand-down? Why is it so inconceivable that the USAF would be in a peacetime defensive posture during – duuuh – peacetime?? Our defense budget is huge: it’s not infinite.
Contrast that with the people who say the US deliberately shot down Flight 93. Kind of hard for us to shoot down a plane if every military aircraft is on a stand down status. Any aircraft isn’t like a car that you just jump in and “go.” There’s a pretty long pre-flight checklist you’ve got to go through. Even light plane pilots like Broomstick have to go through one before they take off. I’m not sure what the military ones are like, but if they’re anything like the various Byzantine military rules I’ve tried to read in the past, it’s certainly not something you can breeze through in a couple of moments.
Guess what? The Bush Administration would have come out a hell of a lot better if they had been able to foil the 9/11 plot.
When concocting a conspiracy theory, the first thing you need to do is state some plausible reason; some benefit that the conspirators gained that they couldn’t have gained more easily and with less risk by not conspiring.
The idea that the administration was somehow involved in 9/11 is so stupid it doesn’t even deserve a tinfoil hat.