So, the White House was warned of an imminent attack. But no one knew when. No one knew where. No one knew by which means.
It’s rather easy after the fact to say “Aha! You were warned!” But let’s face it, there’s probably nothing they could have done a month or two before 9/11 that would have prevented it from happening, at some point anyway. Of course now we know how it was done and more restrictive air travel policies are in effect, but there’s no way anyone knew the specifics before this attack. I don’t buy it.
My conspiracy theory is that the whole ridiculous Truther movement was started by the neo-cons in order to discredit opponents of the war in Iraq.
OK, I don’t actually believe that.
I do think, however, that Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc would have been happy that the movement existed, as it tarred by (nebulous) association legitimate concerns about what the US Government was up to when making its case for war.
eg I remember seeing online comments along the lines of: “You don’t think we should get rid of Saddam?! Say, you’re not one of those nutty Truthers, are you?”
The USA would never stoop to using CIA agents to stir up terrorism fears!
Remember the 2nd underwear bomber?
Oh yea about the original guy? How exactly did he get on a plane without a passport again? Who was the well dressed gentleman who had an American accent who convinced the airline to let him on board?
Clearly there is no CIA funny business going on, no sir! Only nuts believe that stuff.
Nobody is saying that. There are some real conspiracies and the real ones often involve the CIA. Iran-Contra is a textbook case for example and is plenty odd enough on its own. The Lincoln assassination is an even older example. However, that doesn’t mean that any whacked out conspiracy theory that violates the laws of physics and/or logic deserve should be taken equally seriously.
I think there are four major factors associated with conspiracy theorists:
The belief that all important world events are controlled by a secret group of very powerful people whose true motives can only be deduced by studying their work carefully.
Inability to separate plausible and implausible theories and apply known facts to differentiate between them.
Intensive focus on small details that are used to support a preconceived conclusion rather than looking at the whole picture.
Failure to accept scientific and rational explanations for perceived oddities and incorporate that knowledge into their beliefs.
You don’t buy what? That Dick Cheney would be happy for 9/11 to happen the way it did? That Dick Cheney was the most knowledgeable person on these matters in the White House at the time? That Dick Cheney was one of the most knowledgeable people on these matters in Washington at the time?
He had means, motive, and opportunity. But what could you ever convict him of? He simply did nothing, even when warnings were imminent.
As has been noted, the extent of the warning was “al-Qaeda might be getting ready to attack something, somewhere, at some point, and planes might be involved”.
What specific action do you think Dick Cheney could have taken that would have been 1) effective and 2) politically feasible?
It’s so out there that the pilot for a spin-off of the X-fileswhich was based on the conceit that in its universe, the wackiest of paranoid conspiracy theories (faked moon landing, Kennedy assassinated by shadowy forces within the U.S. government, etc) featured a “rogue operatives within government conduct a false-flag mission to fly a commercial airliner into the WTC in order to touch off a profitable war in said region” plot, which aired in March of 2011.
In other words, it’s exactly the sort of thing that conspiracy nuts are liable to believe, enough so that it was a cliche even before it happened. This is the mentality that accepts that condensation trails are a widespread conspiracy to spread mind control drugs, or that there are forced labour camps for malcontents on the moon that Armstrong never walked on, that fluoride in the water supply makes people complacent, that a conspiracy to plant a Kenyan foreigner in the White House began with the placement of a fake birth announcement in a Hawaii’an paper in 1961, that pro-choice activists are pawns of Satanists who need a reliable source of fetal collagen to support the cosmetics industry, etc. etc.
You and I may find Occam’s razor handy to wield in order to excise extraneous assumptions, but the conspiracy theorist has long ago cut out any part of their brain that allows for critical assessment of a hypothesis. This is an attractive POV for some people because it allows them to believe that they are in possession of an occult and exciting Truth. For some, this is much more rewarding than believing in something as mundane as a bunch of arseholes with grudges and box-cutters carrying off something so devastating on their own. Why let reason spoil everything?
Ok, now this is weird… I have been reading up on some of the 9/11 stuff recently. Is the board following my brain perhaps?
Search on Youtube. There are people who are claiming that the jumpers are dummies, or that the people who were hanging out the windows were being held in by harnesses etc.
I know that this wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll answer it anyway: While I believe that Cheney is one of the cruelest assholes of our time, I don’t believe that he engineered 9/11. Why the fuck would he?
It’s like asking why “terrorists” are caught only if entrapped.
Just in case there’s a misunderstanding – what I’m saying is those who would be eventually hurt and/or exposed by following some of the rational or untapped lines of inquiry usually are the ones introducing fantastic tales.
Hey, they are only asking questions. Of course when you give them answers they don’t acknowledge it and just ask more “questions.”
If all the conspiracies that CTers believe were true it would take an amazingly large number of people to pull it off. They are just pissed off no one asked them to be a part of it. They are the chubby nerd that was not picked for a team on the playground.
Totally agree here. Cheney and company took the opportunity to run with their agenda (I do not doubt they would have gotten us into Iraq on some other excuse if 9/11 had not happened) but taking advantage of a situation and engineering that situation ar two seperate things.
Yes I’m sure I am too dumb to understand the scary smart Truther knowledge. Try to enlighten this poor soul.
If they were smart enough to pull off the operation flawlessly they would have been smart enough to look better when it happened. Bush looked less than heroic when he was told and Cheney just inspired where’s Waldo jokes.
I doubt if I’m any smarter than Loach, but I’m going to try anyway. Are you saying that the CIA originated the Truther theories to keep people off the scent of the real story?
The question is why is it that plausible theories – the ones that seem more feasible – got swamped and overrun with the ideas whose only goal, it seems, is to start with super-fantastic elements and increase on crazy at every turn. Having these ideas accumulate in a short order of time gave rise to the term “Truther” and thus accomplished quite an enormous task in allegedly democratic society we live in – ensure that the only viable version of an event is the version given by the State. It, in fact, gave rise to a certain paradigm existing in clouds above the masses all the while, the issue deserving to be discussed is somewhere else.
Mocking “Truthers” is now badge of being smart, rational and fully aware individual. As your response shows it, you are wearing that badge with a passion.
So your theory is that whoever was behind the attacks (presumably not Osama Bin Laden, in your view) originated the Truther theories to create an atmosphere in which any alternative theory was discredited in advance? Am I getting closer? If so, who do you believe is the originator?
