My thoughts on 9/11

[FaithIsFilth]

I wanted to get your guys take on this. I'm not a "truther" and I won't be making any truth claims here, only stating my suspicions. I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage. If this is true, to me that is just as bad as pulling off the attacks themselves in a false flag, so to me it doesn't make a difference whether it was a false flag. It would be just as bad either way (same result), so I would argue that the question of whether America attacked itself isn't even really one that matters.

What it comes down to for me is this. Those in charge could have shot down the planes and chose not to. The damage and lives lost could have been ten times less or something like that if the US took action. Why didn't they? Stupidity? I just can't bring myself to buy that explanation. These people are not complete idiots. I'm supposed to believe that they were dumb enough to just sit on their hands and let both twin towers and the Pentagon get hit? The greatest military power in the world just let it happen?

The US wouldn't let so many of their own die? Is 3000 people really a lot? I would argue that 3000 is a very small number when looking at the big picture. The US kills hundreds of thousands of people around the world, so sacrificing 3000 of their own for their cause/war is next to nothing. A drop in the bucket.

Most threads with those questioning the official story of 9/11 are filled with posts like "evidence or GTFO", but hopefully this doesn't turn out like that. Truthers deserve that for making farfetched claims they can't back up with evidence. I don't have an absolute belief about the things I'm talking about in this thread. Only strong suspicions.

There was a previous attempt on the WTC, and of course we all know about the US having the intelligence before 9/11 that Bin Laden was determined to attack. They had to have come to the conclusion that the WTC was going to be a likely target, no? So here's my question to you guys: Knowing this, and knowing that they just sat on their hands as planes crashed into several of their buildings, why is it more logical to take the position that the US didn't want the attacks to happen rather than having/leaning towards the opposite position? You can not prove that they did or did not want it to happen, so why is the position that they absolutely didn't want it to happen seen as the logical position to take? This I do not understand.

[GrinningYMIR]

Be careful now, the last thread like this we had caused more than a little bit of anger, usually descends into flame wars

[stromboli]

We went through this for about 50 pages previously. To put it simply, all conspiratorial thoughts aside, there is not enough evidence to prove any conspiracy and no smoking gun as well. So continue if you want. I am an ex-firefighter and weighed in with my knowledge, another individual not currently posting is also an ex firefighter and another individual was stationed there in a security capacity prior to when it happened. So go ahead, but I won't contribute further.

[FaithIsFilth]

Be careful now, the last thread like this we had caused more than a little bit of anger, usually descends into flame wars

Yeah, but isn't that usually because someone makes a farfetched claim, then they are called out on it and told to provide evidence, then the person making the claim tells the others that they are idiots for not seeing how obvious it is, even though they can't provide evidence, then the others tell him that he's an idiot for believing things not backed by evidence, and so on...?

That's not what this is. I'm not claiming that I know what really happened and that everyone else is an idiot for not seeing it my way.

[FaithIsFilth]

We went through this for about 50 pages previously. To put it simply, all conspiratorial thoughts aside, there is not enough evidence to prove any conspiracy and no smoking gun as well. So continue if you want. I am an ex-firefighter and weighed in with my knowledge, another individual not currently posting is also an ex firefighter and another individual was stationed there in a security capacity prior to when it happened. So go ahead, but I won't contribute further.

This thread is different. The point of this thread is not to "prove a conspiracy". Like I said, I don't make any truth claims and am not trying to prove anything here. I don't even have an absolute belief here that I'm trying to argue.

Firefighters have nothing to do with shooting down planes, so I don't see what that has to do with this thread in particular. I haven't made any claims about explosives in the buildings or anything like that, nor do I believe any of that.

I'm simply asking a question about logic. Why is it more logical to have a belief that the US didn't want it to happen? There is no evidence at all to back up this belief. None. There is no evidence one way or the other, so I refrain from believing one way or the other. Are my suspicions unreasonable? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends who you ask. If you saw someone getting their head kicked in on the street and a bunch of cops were standing around watching it happen, would it be unreasonable to think that maybe they didn't mind/care that it was happening?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I have my own suspicions about 911, but even if I had strong evidence it probably wouldn't matter because governments are really good at discrediting things especially when people don't want to believe them.

[PickelledEggs]

I remember suspecting my first conspiracy...

Sent from your mom

[Poison Tree]

I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage.

Why would they need "maximum damage". Wouldn't one WTC Tower collapsing be sufficient for their plan? Wouldn't allowing part of the attack to happen but then intercepting the other planes have accomplished whatever they wanted while also making themselves look competent and heroic?

Those in charge could have shot down the planes and chose not to.

Looks like a factual claim to me.

They had to have come to the conclusion that the WTC was going to be a likely target, no?

Did they also have to come to the conclusion that the attack would use airplanes as weapons? Why shouldn't they have concluded that it was going to be another car bomb like not only the previous WTC attack but also the attacks on US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

they just sat on their hands as planes crashed into several of their buildings

Sat on their hands?


The gist of your "strong suspicion" is, correct me if I'm wrong, 1)The government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, their perpetrators, target(s) and--perhaps--method. 2) The government took no action to stop said attacks, wanting "maximum damage" (for some reason you've not yet suggested; at the risk of putting words into your mouth, presumably an excuse for war) 3) No person of consequence has ever admitted being part of this themselves or called out any person for be part of it.

It is that last part I'd like you to think about. How many people must have known that attacks were coming. The president, his inner circle, intelligence agents for the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect. None of these people thought, "fuck this, I'm saving 3000 lives". Not a single person--either an original member of the conspiracy of a new comer or investigator or reporter stumbling over evidence of it--couldn't sleep one night and decided to purge his conscience or make a name for herself reporting one it. Not a single person thought, "making these accusations public would cost the damn Republicans the election and/or force that murdering scum Bush out of office".

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Even if true such as suggested our government could never admit it because ALL credibility would be shot for many years to come both domestically and abroad..

[FaithIsFilth]

Why would they need "maximum damage". Wouldn't one WTC Tower collapsing be sufficient for their plan? Wouldn't allowing part of the attack to happen but then intercepting the other planes have accomplished whatever they wanted while also making themselves look competent and heroic?

Who knows. I'm not claiming to be able to read minds or know what they were thinking, but like I said, the maximum damage was still an extremely small loss of life in the big picture (sorry, I know that sounds insensitive, but in previous wars the Americans have lost hundreds of thousands, so 3000 is a small sacrifice when you look at it from that perspective), and the image of both towers going down you have to admit, is a great one to shove down the people's throats year after year to get them teary eyed and hating the enemy. It's an extremely powerful image, and got me too in the past. I previously supported drone strikes and the torture Bush was sanctioning. My best guess is that maybe they didn't only let one plane strike because they wanted to be able to make the argument, "Hey, we've REALLY been hurt. They not only hit one tower, but both, AND the Pentagon. This is a huge threat that needs to be defeated", which then makes less people question their endless wars in the Middle East.

Looks like a factual claim to me.

The Americans had the ability to shoot down planes. That is a fact. They did not shoot them down. Fact. They knew the planes were hijacked before the attacks. All facts.

Did they also have to come to the conclusion that the attack would use airplanes as weapons? Why shouldn't they have concluded that it was going to be another car bomb like not only the previous WTC attack but also the attacks on US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

I don't know. My only claim is that they knew an attack was likely coming, they knew of the planes hijackings before the attacks on the towers happened, and they didn't do anything about it.

Sat on their hands?


The gist of your "strong suspicion" is, correct me if I'm wrong, 1)The government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, their perpetrators, target(s) and--perhaps--method. 2) The government took no action to stop said attacks, wanting "maximum damage" (for some reason you've not yet suggested; at the risk of putting words into your mouth, presumably an excuse for war) 3) No person of consequence has ever admitted being part of this themselves or called out any person for be part of it.

It is that last part I'd like you to think about. How many people must have known that attacks were coming. The president, his inner circle, intelligence agents for the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect. None of these people thought, "fuck this, I'm saving 3000 lives". Not a single person--either an original member of the conspiracy of a new comer or investigator or reporter stumbling over evidence of it--couldn't sleep one night and decided to purge his conscience or make a name for herself reporting one it. Not a single person thought, "making these accusations public would cost the damn Republicans the election and/or force that murdering scum Bush out of office".

I don't think too many people had to know that they were letting the attack happen on purpose. Only the President and his close circle I think would need to know. Why would anyone other than them need to know, if the attack wasn't pulled off by the US, but instead Al Qaeda did it and Bush simply let it happen? All those in power would need to do is sit back and enjoy the show, while simply making sure the order is not given to shoot down the planes, and just give some BS excuse for why the order was not given for fighter jets to engage.

[Desdinova]

Let's suppose we did shoot those planes down.  What kind of shit storm would that have created?  US shoots down its own planes because they were hijacked?  Why didn't the government wait to see what the hijackers' demands were?  Oh, you knew they were going to crash then into the WTC?  Yeah, right. 

[stromboli]

What you are doing is exactly the same as arguing for religion based on faith. You don't have evidence and all your statements are supposition and suspicions.

[Jason78]

I wanted to get your guys take on this. I'm not a "truther" and I won't be making any truth claims here, only stating my suspicions. I think it is very likely that the US wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and purposely didn't shoot down the planes so there could be maximum damage. If this is true, to me that is just as bad as pulling off the attacks themselves in a false flag, so to me it doesn't make a difference whether it was a false flag. It would be just as bad either way (same result), so I would argue that the question of whether America attacked itself isn't even really one that matters.

What it comes down to for me is this. Those in charge could have shot down the planes and chose not to. The damage and lives lost could have been ten times less or something like that if the US took action. Why didn't they? Stupidity? I just can't bring myself to buy that explanation. These people are not complete idiots. I'm supposed to believe that they were dumb enough to just sit on their hands and let both twin towers and the Pentagon get hit? The greatest military power in the world just let it happen?

The US wouldn't let so many of their own die? Is 3000 people really a lot? I would argue that 3000 is a very small number when looking at the big picture. The US kills hundreds of thousands of people around the world, so sacrificing 3000 of their own for their cause/war is next to nothing. A drop in the bucket.

Most threads with those questioning the official story of 9/11 are filled with posts like "evidence or GTFO", but hopefully this doesn't turn out like that. Truthers deserve that for making farfetched claims they can't back up with evidence. I don't have an absolute belief about the things I'm talking about in this thread. Only strong suspicions.

There was a previous attempt on the WTC, and of course we all know about the US having the intelligence before 9/11 that Bin Laden was determined to attack. They had to have come to the conclusion that the WTC was going to be a likely target, no? So here's my question to you guys: Knowing this, and knowing that they just sat on their hands as planes crashed into several of their buildings, why is it more logical to take the position that the US didn't want the attacks to happen rather than having/leaning towards the opposite position? You can not prove that they did or did not want it to happen, so why is the position that they absolutely didn't want it to happen seen as the logical position to take? This I do not understand.

Did it ever occur to you that the people that were defending america that day were just fallible human beings that could only act on the information that was presented to them at the time?  By the time anyone realised that anything was seriously wrong, it was way to late to put any kind of effective plan into operation.

[FaithIsFilth]

What you are doing is exactly the same as arguing for religion based on faith. You don't have evidence and all your statements are supposition and suspicions.

How so? Those who firmly believe that the US didn't want it to happen are the ones that have a belief without evidence. I don't believe one way or the other, so how can there be faith like you say, when I don't even have a belief to have faith in?

Here is the definition of faith:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing.


2. belief that is not based on proof.

[Poison Tree]

The Americans had the ability to shoot down planes. That is a fact. They did not shoot them down. Fact. They knew the planes were hijacked before the attacks. All facts.

All facts, but not the relevant facts. I don't think anyone has questioned America's ability to shoot down planes in the abstract. Hell, I have the ability to shoot down planes, at least hypothetically. The question is about the ability to shoot down the hijacked planes between the time that the hijackings became known and the planes hit.

NORAD did order fighters into the air, but only had 6 minutes between being alerted that Flight 11 had been hijacked and flight 11 hitting the first  tower. Although there was 20 minutes between the first and second tower being hit, there was only 8 minutes between the New York Air Traffic Control Center's operations manager being alerted that Flight 175 had been hijacked and Flight 175 hitting the second tower.

Unless you are now willing to suggest that air traffic controllers, NORAD, air national guard pilots, ect, also were knowledgeable about an imminent terrorist attack, its target and method--which would obviously expand the number of people in on the conspiracy well beyond Bush's close circle--why should they have been in a position to shoot down these two planes in the time allotted? It is not as if it had been standard policy to have AA capabilities ready to go at major landmarks all across America. It is not as if hijacked planes had a history of being used as a weapon. It is not as if readying fighters and intercepting a commercial flight in a crowded sky is a simple or quick matter. It is not as if Bush were simply sitting on the phone ready to give the order to shoot down commercial flights. It is not as if he immediately know what planes were hijacked and how they'd be used.

All the steps necessary to shoot down these planes--realize they are hijacked, realize they are to be used as weapons, get presidential authority to shoot down these planes, communicate each step, have armed fighters airborne, identify and intercept target and shoot it down--all take time; time that wasn't abundant on that day.