Your veiw on 9/11?

[Aquitaine]

Hey there. I just watched a documentary on TV about 9/11, which was basically about Officials and Conspiracy Theorists bickering about the events.

So I thought I'd come here and ask ya'll what is your veiw on 9/11, in the context of what you "believe" about the event?

Do you believe the official story, or do you believe a conspiracy theory?

 

[Caladan]

I believe its a shame to use an event of this magnitude in sensational conspiracy theories. its also a shame to see some Americans being caught up in this sensationalism.
besides, what does it mean to believe the official story? the official story itself has undoubtedly been filtered to contain that information which received the OK as safe to be published.
conspiracy theories are like fungi after the rain wherever the lower passions of people reign. many people will choose to believe the sensational as a default, whether it is a sign of paranoia or a compulsive need to squeeze out of reality more than meets the eye, I don't know.

 

[blackout]

building 7.

(I really need to stay out of this thread.)
Everyone is free to think see believe and trust whatever (and whoever) they are inclined to.

I really don't care, and i'm tired of being insulted for not trusting my govt. in any way.
You believe them. fine.
It's no matter to me.

(PS... I will not be voting on the poll)

 

[Nepenthe]

Hey there. I just watched a documentary on TV about 9/11, which was basically about Officials and Conspiracy Theorists bickering about the events.

So I thought I'd come here and ask ya'll what is your veiw on 9/11, in the context of what you "believe" about the event?

Do you believe the official story, or do you believe a conspiracy theory?

The evidence points conclusively to a plot of nineteen terrorists- fifteen from Saudi Arabia and two from the UAE and one from Egypt- who hijacked four planes, crashed two into the towers, a third into the Pentagon, and the fourth in a field in Pennsylvania. Everything points to al-Qaeda formulating the plan, and the conspiracy theories from controlled demolitions to Flight 93 was shot down and hundreds of other variations are rumor mongering and have no basis in fact. So yes, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is the most likely scenario.

 

[Madhuri]

I find it difficult to trust the previous US government considering that they lied and lied and lied.

Rusco, was the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11? That one was the conspiracy theory that caught my attention.

 

[Nepenthe]

I find it difficult to trust the previous US government considering that they lied and lied and lied.

Rusco, was the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11? That one was the conspiracy theory that caught my attention.

I don't rely on the government for the info.; I rely on journalists and scientific studies of the conspiracy claims to arrive at my opinion. And those just happen to most closely match what the official commission proposed.

 

[gnomon]

Hey there. I just watched a documentary on TV about 9/11, which was basically about Officials and Conspiracy Theorists bickering about the events.

So I thought I'd come here and ask ya'll what is your veiw on 9/11, in the context of what you "believe" about the event?

Do you believe the official story, or do you believe a conspiracy theory?

More than 3,000 people lost their lives when primarily a group of Saudi hijackers flew two planes into the WTC, one plane into the Pentagon and one plane failed to reach its target.

I believe more people are willing to accept without question either an official story or a conspiracy theory. There is a lot of information out there which gets ignored. Of all the CT's none of them hold any credibility with me. Neither the Loose Change or Michael Moore's insipid little attempt to sway an election. The complexities of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, along with many other nations and between Middle Eastern nations, is beyond most of us and usually what we get out of the media are simplistic presentations.

edit: Also to note, there has been a lot of work from many people showing the science behind how buildings fall, planes, etc. that CT's completely ignore. I tend to agree with those that find the CT's a bit shallow and rude.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't rely on the government for the info.; I rely on journalists and scientific studies of the conspiracy claims to arrive at my opinion. And those just happen to most closely match what the official commission proposed.

Well, that's what we all have to rely on. Media/journalists cn't always be trsuted though either seeing as they are always bending truth. I've known a few journalists who have actually quit their profession because they became sick of telling lies or sensationalising.

 

[Nepenthe]

Well, that's what we all have to rely on. Media/journalists cn't always be trsuted though either seeing as they are always bending truth. I've known a few journalists who have actually quit their profession because they became sick of telling lies or sensationalising.

Sure, but how else do you form any opinion? Why would anyone accept global warming as a reality when many of the major studies are government sponsored and then reported by the untrustworthy media? Why trust claims of genocide in Darfur? What lying journalistic source or government do you trust to accept the reality of genocide there or not? The U.S. says it is genocide, the U.N. says not. My point is that opinions should be based on the evidence, and lying governments and journalists are usually outed or corrected by others whose interests are in exposing lies. So it's not a matter of trusting any one source, but comparing various sources and looking at the evidence critically.

And the 9/11 truthers are as incompetent and deceitful as the Obama birthers.

 

[Madhuri]

Sure, but how else do you form any opinion? Why would anyone accept global warming as a reality when many of the major studies are government sponsored and then reported by the untrustworthy media? Why trust claims of genocide in Darfur? What lying journalistic source or government do you trust to accept the reality of genocide there or not? The U.S. says it is genocide, the U.N. says not. My point is that opinions should be based on the evidence, and lying governments and journalists are usually outed or corrected by others whose interests are in exposing lies. So it's not a matter of trusting any one source, but comparing various sources and looking at the evidence critically.

And the 9/11 truthers are as incompetent and deceitful as the Obama birthers.

Exactly. For these reasons I don't completely trust any source. Even those which provide 'evidence', well they all do. We can only interpret and form opinions based on what we think is most likely, which is based on the information gathered by biased groups. And everyone is biased.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Conspiracy theories are not about the government lying or what "really happened." They are a psychological tool people employ to attempt to explain the world in a way which makes it less scary and unpredictable.

 

[T-Dawg]

It's pretty obvious at this point that even if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, Bush sure as heck was looking forward to it, and the government's not going to give us the full story. They knew something was coming, so they just sat there and waited so they'd have an excuse to go to war in Iraq. They planned it out.
(I voted for the fourth option)


What the heck?!? Why are the Official Story-ers beating the conspiracy theorists 4 to 2?!? The Official Story has virtually no evidence that I've seen and comes from one of the most untrustworthy sources possible (a republican run government)...

 

[Darkness]

I used to believe the US Government, or a faction of it, either destroyed the World Trade Centers themselves or allowed the Hijackers to commit their evil deeds. I have since learned that there is no real evidence to support either. Too many CIA officers would have had to be involved the conspiracy, which makes it vastly improbable.

 

[YmirGF]

I used to believe the US Government, or a faction of it, either destroyed the World Trade Centers themselves or allowed the Hijackers to commit their evil deeds. I have since learned that there is no real evidence to support either. Too many CIA officers would have had to be involved the conspiracy, which makes it vastly improbable.

What I find amusing is that a government that couldn't orchestrate a proper response to Katrina was capable of pulling off the greatest hoax ever. It is impossible to be 100% sure but the probability factor makes it highly unlikely. The simple reality is that the Bush administration was too incompetent in too many areas for this to be an "inside job".

 

[T-Dawg]

What I find amusing is that a government that couldn't orchestrate a proper response to Katrina was capable of pulling off the greatest hoax ever. It is impossible to be 100% sure but the probability factor makes it highly unlikely. The simple reality is that the Bush administration was too incompetent in too many areas for this to be an "inside job".

Are you sure that the government didn't avoid giving a proper response to Katrina intentionally, and that it was just incompetence? Bush wasn't necessarily incompetent, he was just plain evil. He knew what he was doing the whole time. He was sort of like Reagan, an evil genius that knew he could get by with a lot more stuff if he pretended to be a complete idiot. The best way to cover up one's evil deeds is to pretend that they were mistakes.
The Patriot Act was too ruthless and efficient (as was the war for oil in Iraq) to be the result of pure idiocy. Idiots can't blame everything on terrorists, use them as an excuse to enact anti-constitutional legislature, and get away with it - it takes an evil genius to make the scapegoat look real.

 

[Alceste]

I've read this book, which does a pretty good job of laying out the rationale behind the "9-11 was permitted to happen to advance the PNAC's M.E. agenda" argument. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions - I don't think he provides enough evidence to support them and many of his citations lead to the same source, but I do think that many pertinent questions he raises have not been answered and the story the Bush administration offered (the 9-11 commission report) is selective and incomplete. Anyway, I went for the 4th option.

 

[YmirGF]

Are you sure that the government didn't avoid giving a proper response to Katrina intentionally, and that it was just incompetence? Bush wasn't necessarily incompetent, he was just plain evil. He knew what he was doing the whole time. He was sort of like Reagan, an evil genius that knew he could get by with a lot more stuff if he pretended to be a complete idiot. The best way to cover up one's evil deeds is to pretend that they were mistakes.
The Patriot Act was too ruthless and efficient (as was the war for oil in Iraq) to be the result of pure idiocy. Idiots can't blame everything on terrorists, use them as an excuse to enact anti-constitutional legislature, and get away with it - it takes an evil genius to make the scapegoat look real.

So much for intelligent dialogue.

 

[Nepenthe]

It's pretty obvious at this point that even if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, Bush sure as heck was looking forward to it, and the government's not going to give us the full story. They knew something was coming, so they just sat there and waited so they'd have an excuse to go to war in Iraq. They planned it out.
(I voted for the fourth option)


What the heck?!? Why are the Official Story-ers beating the conspiracy theorists 4 to 2?!? The Official Story has virtually no evidence that I've seen and comes from one of the most untrustworthy sources possible (a republican run government)...

Do you have specifics? I mean specific conspiracy allegations like explosives in the towers, the cell phone controversy, etc.?

 

[ericoh2]

Hey there. I just watched a documentary on TV about 9/11, which was basically about Officials and Conspiracy Theorists bickering about the events.

So I thought I'd come here and ask ya'll what is your veiw on 9/11, in the context of what you "believe" about the event?

Do you believe the official story, or do you believe a conspiracy theory?

Well this is one of the most interesting debates concerning a government cover up of all time. In all honesty we may never find out all of what really happened, but I have come across a lot of strange occurrences involving 9/11. Here are a few:

1. Several of the supposed hijackers have reportedly been found alive.
2. Supposedly no black boxes were found from either plane hitting the trade centers (even though two fireman claim that they along with FBI agents did find them but were taken away by the agents and told to keep quiet about it.) And the boxes found on the other flights were said to be too damaged to listen to. This rarely occurs on any flight as these boxes are designed to withstand tremendous heat and impact.
3. Even though the black boxes were said not to be found at the WTC site, it was said that a passport of one terrorist somehow did survive and soaked in jet fuel, fell to the ground, was found, and somehow wasn't burned up.
4. Building 7's collapse does appear to be bizarre considering how it fell.
5. There has never been a clear video of a plane hitting the pentagon even though it is one of the most secure buildings with more likely than not countless video cameras.

This is just to name a few of the bizarre stories I have come across but there are more. In light of this and the already obvious deception in other cases involving our government as a whole, I do get the feeling that something is "off" about the official story. It's hard to say exactly what happened but something just doesn't feel right about the whole thing.

 

[Alceste]

Do you have specifics? I mean specific conspiracy allegations like explosives in the towers, the cell phone controversy, etc.?

The most credible specific theory is that intelligence was received from all over the world indicating that an attack was imminent (including many specific details), several of the hijackers were under investigation prior to the attack, these investigations were called off without explanation, and that an executive decision to take no preventive measures was made in order to advance the PNAC agenda. That would be "Rebuilding America's Defences", written years before 9-11, which openly states a Pearl Harbour-like attack on US soil would be necessary to win public support for their plans.

Not saying that's what I think definitely happened. I don't think it will ever be possible to know for certain what happened The first three points are factual and evidence based, but the conclusion is conjecture. I think that's the best we can do.