9/11 Conspiracy Theory

[Baruch]

Inside job?  Probably not.

Taken advantage of by the warmongers and war profiteers?  Yeah, that's pretty clear.  If they were serious about rooting out the 9/11 conspirators after invading Afghanistan, the next target should have been Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, and that should have been dones only after being damn sure the job in Afghanistan was complete.

Instead, they left Afghanistan half in the hands of Taliban thugs and immediately moved on Iraq.  And given the number of times Dubya moved the goalposts in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, it's pretty clear that war there was their goal once they saw they had an opportunity.  remember that they prioritized defending the oil ministry while the museumâ€"and by extension, the historical legacy of human civilizationâ€"was looted.  That should tell you what their ultimate goal really was.

And, predictably, they fucked *that* up too.

Conspiracy?  No.  Greed?  You betcha.

Yeah, PNAC was just fake news.  Republicans are humanitarians ;-(

[SGOS]

Not unambiguous evidence.  And not any that you or I would ever be allowed to see.  How long before a story about Enigma (but maybe not the real story) was allowed in public?

The perfect conspiracy, like the perfect murder, is difficult to pull off.  Not to say they don't exist.  I believe they do.  Not identifying a conspiracy doesn't mean there is no conspiracy.

[aitm]

I run construction jobs...small to medium  6-30 million. Large jobs like the towers that have several hundred workers may seem like an easier target but larger jobs are far more restrictive simply due to the amount of tools and equipment open for snatching. Trying to convince anyone familiar with this role that somehow some peeps were able to strategically place explosives in the main frame for an attack coming thirty years in the future.....yeah....that's not "conspiracy theory" that's straight up stupid.

[SGOS]

Yeah, PNAC was just fake news.  Republicans are humanitarians ;-(

Actually NPR did an interview with an Iraq War critic who was explaining PNAC and who was obviously critical of its motives.  At one point, the interviewer got ahead of himself and suggested that it was a conspiracy.  The critic quickly negated the suggestion, adamantly protested, and clarified that it was not a conspiracy because all one had to do was go to the New American Century website and read what they had been openly pushing for years and years.

It would seem like a conspiracy to the average American for sure, because few Americans had ever heard about PNAC, but in fact is was there for anyone to read.  New American Century had even lobbied a Mideast invasion to the first Bush administration, and afterwards, to the Clinton Administration, but both flatly rejected the idea, although the website didn't specify Iraq.  Any Mideast country would suffice for their goals.  Iraq only presented itself as an opportunity, because Saddam had pissed off a lot of Americans.

This got me interested in learning more, and when I googled it, even websites that disagreed with NAC, defined the organization as "a group of intellectuals."  Further reading convinced me that this group of so called "intellectuals" was actually sincere and believed they could achieve a semblance of world peace through starting another war.  It turns out they hadn't really followed their arguments to a logical conclusion, as ideologists often tend to do.  I'm not sure what the meaning of "intellectuals" is, but NAC was clearly misguided, and in my opinion unforgivably stupid, because they lacked understanding of Muslim politics.

The actual conspiracy occurred during the Bush Administration that manufactured the propaganda to start the war.  Bush was probably aware of the actual goal, but he and the "intellectuals" of NAC who comprised the majority of the inner circle were more naïve than smart.

[cabinetmaker]

Well, cabinetmaker, what do you think about it??

Regarding the collapse of the three buildings, I think that the official report completely explains that.

There are some interesting question that linger regarding some stock trades in the days before and there is no question that it has been ruthlessly exploited since.

I think the saddest thing is that we lost a huge portion of our freedoms that day and everybody is okay with that.

[Mike Cl]

I think the saddest thing is that we lost a huge portion of our freedoms that day and everybody is okay with that.

That ^^
I absolutely agree.  The naked use of the 'fear' factor just makes me sick.  I grew so tired of hearing people ask me if that attack did not make me afraid.  Finally, I simply told them that I was not, and never was afraid--I was and am angry about it, not fearful. 

[Baruch]

Actually NPR did an interview with an Iraq War critic who was explaining PNAC and who was obviously critical of its motives.  At one point, the interviewer got ahead of himself and suggested that it was a conspiracy.  The critic quickly negated the suggestion, adamantly protested, and clarified that it was not a conspiracy because all one had to do was go to the New American Century website and read what they had been openly pushing for years and years.

It would seem like a conspiracy to the average American for sure, because few Americans had ever heard about PNAC, but in fact is was there for anyone to read.  New American Century had even lobbied a Mideast invasion to the first Bush administration, and afterwards, to the Clinton Administration, but both flatly rejected the idea, although the website didn't specify Iraq.  Any Mideast country would suffice for their goals.  Iraq only presented itself as an opportunity, because Saddam had pissed off a lot of Americans.

This got me interested in learning more, and when I googled it, even websites that disagreed with NAC, defined the organization as "a group of intellectuals."  Further reading convinced me that this group of so called "intellectuals" was actually sincere and believed they could achieve a semblance of world peace through starting another war.  It turns out they hadn't really followed their arguments to a logical conclusion, as ideologists often tend to do.  I'm not sure what the meaning of "intellectuals" is, but NAC was clearly misguided, and in my opinion unforgivably stupid, because they lacked understanding of Muslim politics.

The actual conspiracy occurred during the Bush Administration that manufactured the propaganda to start the war.  Bush was probably aware of the actual goal, but he and the "intellectuals" of NAC who comprised the majority of the inner circle were more naïve than smart.

"Mar 9, 2008 - The Washington Post got its hands on a manuscipt of Douglas Feith's attack memoir and dribbles out excerpts. Calling it a "massive score settling work", there is nothing shocking or revealing, other than it cements Feith's reputation as what General Tommy Franks calls stupidest fucking guy on the planet."

Yes, there were patsies.  There usually are.  Lots of funny minions.  General Powell didn't plan on being a patsy but he became a "token" patsy.

There are all kinds of "think tanks" around Washington DC.  Partisan think tanks.  A Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation, created Romney Care which morphed into Obama Care.  But RICO doesn't just apply to things done in secret.  You don't know what criminal conspiracy means.  Anytime a group of people work together, even in the public halls of Congressional hearings, it is a conspiracy.  If what they are doing is criminal, then it is a criminal conspiracy, rather than an ordinary one (which happens at any political or corporate meeting).  Conspiracy in a positive sense, simple means that people are working together toward a common goal.  Now "cabal" might mean the more secret kind.  Like what happened in the FBI in 2016-2017.  But it won't be very secret much longer.

[Baruch]

Regarding the collapse of the three buildings, I think that the official report completely explains that.

There are some interesting question that linger regarding some stock trades in the days before and there is no question that it has been ruthlessly exploited since.

I think the saddest thing is that we lost a huge portion of our freedoms that day and everybody is okay with that.

Yes, regarding the two main buildings.  Building 7 (which was left standing after the attack) was deliberately taken down ... as a safety measure.  That is where all the Enron files were ;-)

You never had any freedoms, except for the lies the Matrix tells you.  Used to be a holy Trinity of CBS, ABC and NBC in my childhood.

Some of the financial trades may have been coincidental.  But it hasn't been explained, why the wing of the Pentagon (Navy), where the 2 trillion missing dollar audit was to be shortly revealed, was the side that was hit and all records destroyed.

[Unbeliever]

Just because something is considered a "conspiracy theory" doesn't necessarily mean it can't be true:


5 US national security-related conspiracy theories that turned out to be true

[Baruch]

Just because something is considered a "conspiracy theory" doesn't necessarily mean it can't be true:


5 US national security-related conspiracy theories that turned out to be true

Those are still ongoing.  Operation Blue Book on UFOs was USAF COINTELPRO.  I bet the Grey aliens with the "probes" were actually messed up memories of victims in the grip of J Edgar himself ;-)

Yes, the people tried for conspiracy to kill Lincoln, were just innocent bystanders railroaded (they had those back then) by the evil Pinkertons.

[SGOS]

You don't know what criminal conspiracy means.  Anytime a group of people work together, even in the public halls of Congressional hearings, it is a conspiracy.  If what they are doing is criminal, then it is a criminal conspiracy, rather than an ordinary one (which happens at any political or corporate meeting).  Conspiracy in a positive sense, simple means that people are working together toward a common goal.  Now "cabal" might mean the more secret kind.  Like what happened in the FBI in 2016-2017.  But it won't be very secret much longer.

I do have my own meaning for conspiracy, and correct or not, it happens to agree with yours.  I was going to get into that definition in my post, but I felt it was already long enough, and getting into it would NOT add much to intent of my post.  But I do personally believe like you that we are surrounded by conspiracies, many of the criminal type, which ordinary people don't even know about, and for which a conspiracy theory doesn't even exist.  That's the way government works.  That's why we are not privy to what happens in private meetings.  That is the reason for secrecy and lack of transparency.  They make plans that if known, would get them voted right out of office.  It's why legislative outcomes don't match the promises.  I've seen it happen at lower levels in the work place.  It's how administrators further their personal agendas. 

[SGOS]

Just because something is considered a "conspiracy theory" doesn't necessarily mean it can't be true:


5 US national security-related conspiracy theories that turned out to be true

I have no doubt there are more than 5 too.  Unfortunately, the link wouldn't work correctly unless I turned off my ad blocker.  I can't even remember what blocker I have installed, and I didn't want to fiddle around trying to figure out how to turn it back on after I read the article.  However, I did want to read it, although I'll accept the existence of the article in and of itself is a vindication of my own suspicions. 

[Hijiri Byakuren]

There was a very long thread several years ago where I was arguing with a guy over this very topic. Unfortunately I have had no luck finding it.

Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to doubt the official story.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Nevermind, I found it.

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=3569.0

Ah, memories.

[trdsf]

The closest thing to a conspiracy theory I am willing to give the time of day is the suggestion that NASA was pressured to launch Challenger by the White House, because Ronnie wanted a photo-op/sound-bite "phone call" to Christa McAuliffe during his State of the Union that year.  It's exactly the sort of PR scene he would've loved.

All I will say about it is that it's plausible, not that it's probable.  I definitely do not claim that it's demonstrably true.  It is not proven, certainly.  Richard Feynman followed up this possibility during the Rogers Commission investigation and all he determined was that it would have been easy to set up from a strictly technical basis.

The part that doesn't sit well with me is that the NASA I grew up with would, under normal circumstances, not have launched under the conditions that prevailed that January morning.  The temperatures were outside the known safety margins for multiple systems -- that alone would typically have been an automatic scrub, and that is why I think it's plausible (NOT demonstrated) that there was some sort of outside pressure to launch anyway.