I notice you didn't respond to my other post. Let me add a couple of more reasons why the arguments "They would have planted WMD's in Iraq and a conspiracy so large can't be successful" don't hold water. The number one reason why - assuming for a minute that 9/11 was an inside job - the conspirators wouldn't have conspired to plant WMD's is....(drum roll)...they didn't need to. What's that you say? "They absolutely would have had to plant WMD's if it was 9/11 was an inside job" Oh yeah and why is that? We did NOT find WMD's and....oh that's right we are still in Iraq 6 years later under a democratic administration. What's more, even without finding WMD's, supposed liberals like Thomas Friedman are now lauding Bush's choice to invade Iraq. Ok so explain to me again why they so desperately needed to plant the WMD's? They clearly did not, they just changed the reasons why they needed to invade and more importantly why they needed to stay. With arguments like leaving would create a power vacuum in the Middle East, Israel wouldnt' be safe etc. Reasons I might add, that are apparently compelling enough that people accept the continued occupation of Iraq 6 years later. So clearly there is no necessary reason why WMD's MUST be planted if 9/11 was an inside job. I would argue it was an unnecessary risk to double down on your conspiracies and run the risk of being caught in the second (WMD's) especially with an non-compliant international media including Al-Jazeera, leading to closer examination by the folks in this thread for instance of conspiracy one (9/11). Supposedly for folks in this thread believe the lack of conspiracy in planting WMD's is De Facto proof that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. This is a spurious claim in my mind and is frankly illogical. The second point that has been frustrating me is the idea that a large conspiracy cannot and does not exist. This is categorically false. Al Capone ran a criminal empire that extended internationally to Canada. Everyone litterally everyone in Chicago knew that he was ordering hits on his enemies and was running protection rackets etc. and yet the Federal Government spending vast amounts of money and lives was completely unable to prove that this man was ordering these kinds of criminal activities. The crimes would happen everyone would know the mafia was involved and in many cases, because the mafia had done a good job of covering their trail, they were never able to pin specific crimes on anyone. They certainly were never able to pin the numerous crimes Al Capone had ordered on him. Thus we have a guy that was in NO WAY given the benefit of the doubt by the public, Al Capone, whose criminal activities were obvious to EVERYONE and yet there was never enough proof to prosecute him for these crimes. So much for the large conspiracies can't exist theory. They can and DO exist and the Mafia isn't the only example, the Triad and the Yakuza in the far East along with the Russian Mafia and many other large criminal conspiracies - that's a legal term by the way conspiracy to commit fraud, murder etc. so conspiracies DO exist in case you didn't know that - happen all the time and are in fact banal and a day to day occurrence. Many many crimes are never solved many of them involve large criminal conspiracies in fact the large criminal conspiracies tend to have a much higher likelihood of getting away with their crimes then individuals who say kill their wife or try to commit fraud. Sorry everyone, turns out smart humans can do nasty evil things even in broad daylight and get away with them. If criminal organizations who get ZERO benefit of the doubt from the public can get away with crimes then why can't say the Nazi party or the Communist Party in China or Vladimir Putin get away with huge large scale crimes when they do get the benefit of the doubt from the public, have a compliant media, and of course have control over the investigative branches of the government? You see what I'm saying here? I would LOVE to hear a rebuttal of these points. Sadly, I think most people don't want to live in a world where a conspiracy inovling THEIR government can exist. People in Russia for that reason believe Putin, people in China believe Hu Jintao and of course many people in America are too frightened to consider that OUR elites might operate like THEIR elites. Unfortunately, until very recently like as in post World War II recently, there has been zero evidence that political and economic elites operate differently then they have for thousands of years. Since WWII the media barons, historians and propagandists have succeeded in creating the illusion within a country's borders that it is only elites of other nations who behave in such a manner. Please if you rebut this explain why my reasoning please explain why I'm wrong and that if 9/11 was an inside job therefore they MUST plant WMD's to justify Iraq and please rebut how large criminal conspiracies do not exist. That is what people in this thread have said. I have proven they were wrong on both counts. There was no necessity to plant WMD's we were already there and heck we still are. Also vast conspiracies exist and are in fact common.
Your "devil's advocate" post? Because it wasn't particularly interesting...some random speculation. I didn't think you, yourself, thought it was all that compelling considering how carefully you qualified it as mere "devil's advocacy." I think the scrutiny of one of the greatest disasters in US history, and one of biggest terrorist attacks ever, would be as or more intense than the scrutiny on the deserts of Iraq prior to the US deciding to go to the war. It's also a far bigger conspiracy, more people would need to be involved. Keeping many people quiet and complicit is a lot harder than keeping a few people quiet and complicit. It's not just a question of "being in Iraq." Greater political will from the people would have meant a freer hand in prosecuting the war. It became harder and harder for Bush to commit more troops, he had fewer other nations ally with him and thus fewer troops from other nations, etc. I don't think anyone has said that. People have said this conspiracy probably doesn't exist, because there's no compelling evidence for it. The burden is on the people alleging the conspiracy to show that it did happen, not on everyone else to show that it didn't. "Large conspiracies are possible" isn't evidence that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.
What freer hand? We are STILL in Iraq? Does it matter how it happens as long as we continue to sit on the Oil and Saddam who was selling oil for Euro's continues to be dead? I was wanting to debunk the two common cope out answers (large conspiracies don't exist) and (WMD's HAD to be planted) not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. I personally am not convinced of either conspiracy theory. Frankly an elite shadow government team at small choke points (that guy in the FBI who squelched three seperate pre-9/11 investigations, Cheney, Rumsfeld, a guy or two in the airforce and the security team at WTC which was controlled by a bush family member actually) is more reasonable then the utter collapse of our defense/intel network by guys with box cutters. That one seems absurd to me the governments version. So too do many of the 9/11 truthers arguments. I'm not satisfied with either side's claim. I think I did debunk those two arguments re: WMD's being planted are a necessary follow up and large conspiracies are impossible to prosecute and then keep under wraps. By the way are you saying that the other posts you responded to WERE compelling? Or easier arguments to knock down? Post edit: By the way the Mafia routinely keeps things under wraps by bribing (say an insurance claim worth billions on the two towers), threatening and killing "dead men don't talk". If it works for the mafia in their machinations I assume those methods would work elsewhere.
If that's all Bush wanted, he wouldn't have fought for torture, secret prisons and a troop surge. He clearly wanted more out of the war than to merely "sit on the oil and kill Hussein." The first one is a straw man. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claim that large conspiracies don't exist. The second one doesn't prove anything. It's simply an inconsistency, the type which crops up in poorly illustrated conspiracy theories. It's not a "cop-out" because, frankly, there's nothing to cop out of. Again you're confusing who has burden of proof. We're arguing about it "for fun," but basically there's nothing but speculation on either side. For people outside of conspiracy-theory adherents to take it seriously, real evidence needs to be shown, not "You know, conspiracies CAN happen...what if this and what if that and don't you think such-and-such?" Neither. My involvement in this thread is pretty arbitrary. I think the "US government masterminded 9/11" conspiracy theory is fairly silly, but somewhat entertaining to read being "debated." Occasionally I throw in an observation, but I can't say that I care enough, in the absence of any real evidence, to be a consistent respondent. It works well in the world of organized crime, since gangsters have a tough time appealing to the police or FBI for help, for obvious reason. I don't think it works as well in government offices in a pretty stable democracy. Unless you want to posit even more vast conspiracy where the executive branch actually wields dictatorial powers and can murder anyone who's inconvenient with no fear of intervention .
Weren't Penn and Teller (Comedians) used as debunkers for the pro-mainstream line in this thread? Just saying if you mock this guy then uh...how are Penn and Teller (who are extremely political I might add) credible again?
You don't need "credibility" if you actually provide the goods...hard evidence. Then the evidence speaks for itself. Penn & Teller offer evidence when they debunk something. They aren't saying "Trust us." You do need credibility when you're simply asserting something and want people to believe you.
You beat me to it, maxiep. While I don't claim to be an expert on anything being discussed in this thread, I think that some basic physics is being misunderstood here. Ed O.
I don't need Penn and Teller to debunk this stuff. I can see right through these insane theories all by myself.
I agree with this and where the burden of proof lies: However, I have seen people in this thread including you say that you felt it was impossible that a large conspiracy like this could be kept under wraps I wanted to show you some examples of how it would work. By the way the Nazi's keeping the holocaust secret from large numbers of Germans is a better example of how a dictatorial regime can keep things secret. The police aren't your friends if the chief of police is paid off by the mafia or is part of the system of corruption as would be the case with the Nazi's. So I don't think it was a strawman at all but responding to what you and others have claimed. By the way there have been whistleblowers such as Coleen Rolwey who tried to warn of the attacks BEFORE they happened but subsequently had their investigations stymied. The same happened with two other law enforcement agents who saw strange things in Phoenix and also at the notorious flight school in Florida. In all three cases the same guy in the FBI squashed the investigation. Also we are assuming here that if you are IN on the conspiracy you are pretty far gone as you have signed off on murdering american citizens. Let me give you a few things I find fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods still think our own government wouldn't murder our citizens to advance a war effort? Don't you think these polls show that there is a desire, especially in NYC to open a new investigation of 9/11? http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1354 http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855 Do these people's opinion not matter? That's what has baffled me for so long. If it's so iron-clad that it was done by guys with box cutters why so many doubters in the VERY PLACE IT HAPPENED? Maybe it's because we were offered Bin Laden and turned it down. He's the mastermind right? Dead or Alive right? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/11/afghanistan.iraq If Bush was so big on security and Cheney cared so much about fighting the threat of terrorism why not complete a deal for Osama that the Clinton regime had set up? I mean really why WOULD you let the man who blew up the USS Cole slip out of your grip? http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html emphasis mine on that final quote. Why did Richard Clarke say Rumsfeld was immediately wanting to tie 9/11 to Saddam? Richard Clarke mind you had served for MULTIPLE Republican regimes. He wanted to follow in Clinton's footsteps and nail Osama and yet Bush/Cheney got rid of investigations into Osama and the Bin Laden family at large. Clinton was no saint either. But heres what is said about the Bush Admin's attitude towards investigating the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family sans Osama (I recommend reading this whole article): http://www.nthposition.com/didthepresidentspike.php Here is his lead in which answers your questions about why people were afraid to look into matters more closely: My point is there is more then enough oddities and inconsistencies to warrant another investigation. This time we can pull together engineers and scientists and they can explain why things happened the way they have. This shouldn't have to be up to Debunkers and 9/11 truther to duke out. Not if more then half of America and two thirds of NYC want another investigation. Ok waiting for your rebuttal. I imagine you "won't have time to read that" which is the usual case with people who for whatever reason think this is such an open shut case.
I didn't say impossible, I said implausible. Big difference. Implausible things can happen, but please present evidence that it did. And we live in a dictatorial regime? You've got my "rebuttal." You're arguing a straw man. I don't need convincing that bad things can happen or that vast conspiracies are possible. I need convincing that this particular conspiracy happened.
In the times of the pharoahs, slaves were used to build the pyramids. Does that prove that our government built the Hoover dam using forced labor? Comparing Nazi Germany, where the country was at war (both being invaded and taking over countries) and mass media was very limited is silly in this case, IMO. Ed O.
Consider this quote from Herbert Anderson, a crane operator at the dam: "These fellas are slavedrivers!". That's about as plain as it could possibly be. What more proof do you need? And remember, he was on a crane, so he could see everything that was going on. Now you have to ask yourself the question, why is the government unwilling to investigate this? barfo
Ok so wait a minute you don't think it warrants another investigation when there is plenty of evidence that the Bush Administration did not capture Osama when given the chance and killed investigations both of the Bin Laden family and also the FBI killed Colleen Rowley and other agents investigations of the actual hijackers prior to 9/11? Please explain that. My argument is NOT a strawman I'm saying there are tons and tons of reasons why there should be another investigation. I am in no way saying I know what happened on 9/11 you however ARE. Actually it's on you to provide evidence, as it is the government's and your assertion that men with box cutters did the deed. You are saying it's absolutely ironclad that X happened (terrorists with box cutters beat the system). I'm saying it's not and that the first investigation was faulty enough that there are 1,000's of sites that question it many by scholars, journalists, scientists and engineers. 51% of Americans want another investigation 66% of NYC residents do, some 9/11 family members do. So actually since you are ALSO putting forth an assertion your claim is also one that needs to be backed up. Clearly many, MANY people still have doubts. Your theory is an conspiracy theory riddled with holes and based on a very weak argument that a few dozen fairly uneducated men on a very limited budget defeated the most sophisticated military and intelligence apparatus the world has ever seen.
No what I was saying proves that the potential is there e.g. operation Northwoods. I'm also saying that the theory the government provides requires a real suspension of disbelief see my response to ministrel above. I"m NOT I repeat NOT saying I know what happened on 9/11 I want to see a much MUCH more thorough investigation including UNDER OATH testimony from the ex-president and vice president. At the very least there was criminal negligence that day.
Why doesn't the FBI want Osama Bin Laden in connection with 9/11? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm surely with all the HARD EVIDENCE the government has they would include that wouldn't they? I DARE ANYONE to rebut that!
