Personally, 9-11 has effected my family and many family friends. but to hear from people around the internet that they think 9-11 was a conspiracy by the government..just really upsets me..
they think this because a split second before the plane hits, a light flashes on the tower..
and the fact that most news broadcasters "knew what was going to happen"..

Here's one of the videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cvjBViV7g
and another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0Ms7mId34

I just don't understand why these people think this when we have proof the planes were hijacked from all the phone calls from the planes.

So what do you think? was it a conspiracy? or was it a terrorist attack?

I dunno, the flaming bodies falling from the buildings from Worth street 10 blocks away looked pretty real.

I have to laugh at all the idiots that say it was a conspiracy, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL a government operation could go on on that scale without a hitch like it did that day.

Short answer:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Most conspiracies are COMPLETE. BULLSHIT. Do they happen? Yes. But most of the time, it's more likely they're conspiracies of espionage or political abuse (such as covering up bribery, illegal political donations, etc; things of that nature).

9-11 wasn't a government conspiracy. It was sheer government incompetence by the Bush Administration.

Bush wasn't even president for a year, I get that he's not well liked but how do you blame 9/11 on him?

I think these conspiracy theories are so stupid, they're the same kind of people who deny the existence of the Holocaust.

It was a terrorist attack, plain and simple.

There were videos where people claim a UFO was involved, they could see the devil in the smoke clouds....for crying out loud, what is wrong with some people!
No Government Conspiracy that I can see, don't listen to the nutters out there who twist things around to their own liking.

I don't understand why some of the people can't accept that it was a terrorist attack, are their so complacent to think that the US is so powerful that nobody would dare attack them!

Well...they were wrong.

@Robodl95

Because the report was given to him. Intel was gathered, a report was written saying bin Laden was going to attack the US, it was submitted to him, and he just tossed it aside.

Edit: I should express I don't blame him for causing 9/11, don't get me wrong. But, something more could have possibly been done if the threat was taken more seriously.

Edit 2: I should have made that more clear; it's my bad for misspeaking.

i think it's giving the government a bit too much credit to say they could orchestrate such a grand operation. it would require a level of competence that just isn't there. mind you, these are the same people who if THEY mess up and give you too much money, and you don't correct their mistake, they charge YOU for it.

these conspiracy theorists are the same people who think we haven't actually made it to the moon yet. there would be absolutely no point in killing thousands of your own citizens.

I always like a good laugh

Seriously those people who think their government can do something like that need to move somewhere more transparent. Like some small island in the Pacific Ocean. Only nature to worry about. Even nature can be a real hazard to deal with.

I think it was. I've seen many ducomentations about it. The steel the buildings were made of could take heats about 5000 Degrees Celcius, and flames, even if there was oil withe fire, it was around 3000 Degrees Celcius, and both buildings collapsed perfectly without hitting other buildings?
And Bush didn't really care about it..
It's true that it's stupid to kill thousands of people. But I'm not sure whether it was Bin Laden's idea or it was a Governments job..

And I've seen documentaries about alien lizards. But fine, if you take documentaries at their face value, then: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/minutes/q_2907.html

Also:

The damage radius of OTHER BUILDINGS HIT.

You don't need to melt steel 100% for it to fail. Decreasing performance of steel components by 30% to 50% (well within the fire's temperatures) will cause sufficient weakening of the structure to cause colapse at it's most vulnerable points: rivets, welds, and other connectors. You then have several weakened floors unable to support the weight of the structure above them, and the building collapses. It collapses straight down due to the fact that because of their size, there wasn't sufficient time for inertia to overcome the mass. You also need to realize, that despite being so large, about 93% of the volume of the towers was basically air.

Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves only for about three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time normally would be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for almost two hours (102 minutes)—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fire would fill 45,000 square feet of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building.

I think our government is entirely capable of pulling off something of this nature and I wouldn't put it past Bush to conspire to something of this magnitude to panic USians into supporting a war. I am not saying that I believe this is what happened only that I don't doubt it is possible. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

What we know for fact is that Bush had intel and did nothing to stop it. So whether the government planned it or just allowed it to happen doesn't actually matter to me, they are still at least partially responsible for the loss of lives.

And no I'm not a crazy loon that thinks the moon landing was faked too. I'm a reasonable person that realizes our government is full of liars that will stop short of nothing to make themselves look good while doing despicable things.

All the "crazy" language here ills me.

I also don't believe the conspiracy theories. Like SuicidiaParasidia I think it is giving the government too much credit. I also think that if Bush wanted an excuse to go to war then he would found a way that didn't involve killing 3,000 people. I think the conspiracy theory points are really interesting - there's about a billion of them - but I think this is a case of coincidences being presented as something more than they were.

However, I will admit that I do think there is something dodgy about the plane that hit the Pentagon, purely because no plane is visible on the footage of it being hit and you can't see any debris in the footage after it was hit. No doubt there is a reasonable explanation but on the face of it those things are weird.

Yeah he did have info (basically that Bin Laden was planning to attack a federal building in NY, nothing else) but how could he have prevented it? Read this please: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115611/posts if you do not know the who, where, when or how then you cannot prevent an attack. Should he have shut-down airports? Should he have closed all federal buildings in NYC? Should he have invaded? Any of those things would basically kill the economy.

Some things people can come up with is just so "fantastic" you just can't believe it's true. You probably blame it on the conspiracy theoretics or what you call them.

Basically I don't think we're capable of coming up whit any structure that big to stand after being hit by a jumbojet. Didn't it stand for 30 minutes or something, I mean the heat in there? Just sending firemen into that building with a jumbojet in it? They must have been panicing.

Want an example of an Operation so complex, timed to the very second, featured undercover work [so much they didn't even know they were doing it?] and secrecy, protection from all sides, and which moved thousands of people all over the world?




I, personally, think that no, it wasn't some government conspiracy.. though I seriously believe that there are better kept 'secrets' out there, which only a few people in the world know about..
I just can't wait till the day when I go down a wrong ally and end up in Torchwood..

Has anyone seen "Loose Change"? I was so shocked and a bit amazed the first time I watched it. I remember it was in a lesson at high school, we all though it was yet another "boring documentary". But it was .. not. I have never believed in any of the conspiracies that has gone around, but after watching this version of the 9/11 I was amazed to see how worked through people are when they argue about these things. It shows how some of the terrorist that supposedly was on the planes, wasn't.. and how there's a bomb going off before the planes etc. Also the plane that crashed into Pentagon didn't make any holes in the wall where the wings on the plane are.

.. no matter what people have lost their beloved ones and that's what matters. Al Quaida has taken upon guilt and are a treath to us all, which they have proved by several other attacks around the worls aswell. It's interesting to hear about conspiracies, but it's completely unecessary to make them in the first place. What consolation is it anyway?

I looked up Free Republic. It's a conservative website. Nor does it provide any links or anything. So why then should I trust it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain589137.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...0&notFound=true

So the question becomes: how much did Bush really look into it? The who, the where, and the rest, it may have well been in investigation. The student pilots were even considered to be suspicious, but thanks to incompetence and a lack of communications, lines that could have been connected, were not. And did his administration really take it seriously? Did they bother looking into it? I think they did not. Could they have found key information and make decisions that may have prevented or at least stalled the attack? Possibly. There had to have already been investigations into what was going on taking place, otherwise, they would not have bothered to write a memo about it.



Hell, right there could have been an something to look at. Follow the example? How so? I'd say it would have been worthy to look into.

Oh, and lastly: the stuff Bush "would have have to do" is completely bullshit.

"Because the CIA memo mentions only bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round-up any and all of his potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just like FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor." - or investigate key people who seem suspicious, such as the two pilots that were being investigated at the time. You do not need an inquisition to uncover a radical network; you look for key connections, actions, communications, etc.

"Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings." - Or, if investigation lead to the possibility of airplanes being used, he could have warned airliners to beef up security in looking for suspects instead of forcing them to close it down. Plus, I'd like to know specifically which cases this person means. If I do not know what the circumstances or situations are of how these reporters supposedly sneak past weapons, I cannot make any criticisms or comments.

"In order to protect against another Millennium plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high value targets be closed till further notice." - that assumes knowledge that may not have been had at the time. And the "explicit" reference was primarily this line: "The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S." The person said the memo never mentions the "how" and yet, assumes that this is part of the "how" that was never mentioned. They essentially contradicted themselves.

"Because Millennium-plot bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican border until the war on terrorism was won." First of all, again, it's a contradiction in that it assumes a "how" was known. Nor is that true. Sealing off the border would probably have still been ineffective anyway (that's what, uhm, sneaking is about).

"In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would need to invade that country as well." Funny, considering that's exactly what happened. But, that's irrelevant as it was after the post was made. Anyway, how would an invasion have solved anything? You would have had to have captured or killed bin Laden. But even then, they may have had contingency plans, things could have been far too set into motion for an invasion to be effective, etc.

The person who wrote that post was not thinking very intelligently. They are basically using extremes to prove a point.

And for everyone's benefit; here is the memo: Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

lolwut?

I have a nice screencap somewhere from 4chan of someone who used an argument similar. Here it is...

@ Neko, I think that we can basically conclude that we really have no idea. Unless the intel briefing is online somewhere (don't think it is) then no one can be sure what the government knew/didn't. I still think it's unlikely that Bush could have known the exact date, place and means of attack but that's just my opinion. All I'm trying to say is that you don't have any proof that Bush could have stopped the attacks.

I've heard both of them.

First off ma'am back in 2001 CCTV used better quality pictures, but because of technology still pictures were taken and then made into a slide show. I think the lapse was every 1-3 secconds. A plane traveling near the speed of sound isn't going to be picked up by this.

Second, through my understanding of structural engineering, you won't find much debris because of the plane construction (Light aluminum, and plexiglass and titanium) and the building structure (Reinforced concrete ment to take naval rounds I believe) and a stone facade. Think what happens to a plane at that velocity and made of light weight materials craashing into a concrete and stone wall.

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

That is what happens when the plane hits mid height and through a building half as thick, looks consistant to me.

@Robodl95

Well, I never said he would, or that it was a sure thing; just that it may have been a possibility.

Mahna Mahna
Do doo be-do-do
Mahna Mahna
Do do-do do
Mahna Mahna
Do doo be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do-doodle do do do-doo do!

Conspiracy of terrorists who, exploiting a gaping hole in air security, managed to finally destroy the targets they had previously launched an attack on.

Anything else is too crazy or too stupid to take seriously, as any other explanation defies physics, credulity, or both. It's right up there with birthers and vampire hunters.

Last edited by Mistermook : 14th May 2011 at 4:33 AM.