quaist

There are tons of it... but I found an interesting video.

And also: Unanswered Questions: Thinking For Ourselves

spent cigarette

Hmm. I don't normally consider myself a conspiracy theorist, because I normally don't have time to really pay attention to things in detail in order to notice the inconsistencies. (Well, okay, I did have fun for a couple of months thinking that Katie Holmes was not pregnant, but rather, shoving a pillow down her tops, but that was only being half serious.) But I've got to say, there are a lot of things surrounding 9-11 that don't add up.

I haven't watched the video you linked, but I will when I have a moment to spare. But a couple of days ago, I watched a documentary called Loose Change. Its purpose was to basically prove that the terrorism that occured on September 11 were not planned by Al Qaeda, but the Bush administration. And while I'm not certain that's right, it did bring up some very vaild points and questions. Questions that the US government aren't answerering, and probably never will. One must wonder why they insist on being so unnecessarily sneaky about some things.

One thing I'm absolutely certain about is that the WTCs did not collapse as a result of the plane crash. It was demolished. You can very clearly see the explosions through the windows as it fell. I'm not prepared to say that the US were behind it, but after watching this documentary I've stopped assuming Al Qaeda is. Because if nine of the suspected hijackers were found alive and well in the Middle East, what evidence does Bush have of linking Al Qaeda to it? (That "confession" Bin Laden supposedly made on camera was a complete fake. That was not Bin Laden, and you can't convince me otherwise.)

I don't know. I don't want to believe that the Bush administration were behind 9-11, and I'm not prepared to say that much, but there are so many inconsistencies and shady happenings surrounding that day. I'd like to think they were all coincidences, or that their intentions behind being so secretive is pute, but I'm cynical. All I know is that the only "evidence" that links Al Qaeda to 9-11 is Bush's word. And unless he has concrete proof that he just hasn't released to the public yet, his word is completely empty.

AlexEvans

That's sick.

Jacob1983

I think that 9/11 conspiracy theories are possible if you look at the evidence and arguments they bring. However, I think it is very wrong and unAmerican to say that our own government purposely planned out the 9/11 terrorists attacks. That may sound mean but it's how I feel about the topic. Bush usually gets almost all of the blame of 9/11 on his shoulders. I believe that some of the blame is on him but a lot more of it should be on former president Bill Clinton. Clinton had from 1993 to 2001 to try and capture Bin Laden and he was too focused on getting bjs from Ms. Lewinsky. Bush only had 9 months to stop Bin Laden since he came into office in Januar of 2001.

The conspiracy theories of 9/11 that I have heard about is the idea that the WTC had bombs inside of them and were demolished. That one makes a lot of sense. Because if you watch and hear eye witness accounts of the Twin Towers falling down, a lot of those witnesses say that it sounded like bombs going off. I have also heard about a "ghost plane".
And I have also heard there is a mystery about United 93 the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. I think there were only 2 people that saw it crashed and were there when it happened.

spent cigarette

What is?

Jacob1983, nothing is "unAmerican". People can look at the evidence and the arguments and make their own informed decision. Calling it "unpatriotic" is a weak argument against those who decide to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Yep. Ask anyone who was in the buildings when they collapsed; there are many people who say they heard multiple explosions. If you review any footage of the WTCs falling down, you can see for yourself the bombs going off. In the documentary I saw, they twisted the (correct) argument that the WTCs were demolished around so that it appeared to be Bush’s doing, however it is still certainly possible that Al Qaeda (going with the general assumption that they were behind the whole thing) planted them. Still, it does make one curious. Especially when you consider the fact that Bush's brother ordered for bomb-sniffing dogs to stop patrolling the buildings around a week before 9-11. But again, it could very easily be one unfortunate coincidence.

There's one conspiracy theory that says the plane never crashed in Pennsylvania, but landed safely in Ohio. Official reports say that a Delta-187 was thought to have been hijacked but was successfully brought down, however according to conspiracy theorists the flight they are talking about was not the Delta-187, but in fact United 93. It’s validated by discrepancies, such as witnesses reporting seeing around 200 people being taken to a NASA office from said flight, when the Delta-187 only held 90 passengers, etc. It sounds pretty ridiculous to me, but it still offers some food for thought, especially when we consider the fact that it's virtually impossible for the plane to have disintegrated to such an extent that no bodies, or even blood, was found at the scene. Still, if this theory is indeed correct, it begs the question as to where the passengers are now.

There’s also the more commonly-known theory that it was shot down by military planes.

Jacob1983

I'm sick because I think Americans who believe that America and the American government had a part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? I have to laugh at that. It's a disrespect and unAmerican to accuse your own government of having a part of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people. 9/11 was not done by Americans. It was done by radical hateful Islam extremists mainly from Saudia Arabia who hated America and everything that America stands for.

spent cigarette

I can't find anything in my post, or in anyone else's, that says your comment was sick, so you may want to reread what has been said. I did say that insinuating that anyone who dares to question what the US government is telling us are unpatriotic and haters is a weak argument. I may not personally believe that America was behind 9-11, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here and reinforce the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests America wasn't.

There are discrepencies and inconsistencies all over the place. If you review the evidence, it becomes apparent that the US government is hiding things from us. Let me reiterate that I don't necessarily believe the Bush administration is behind 9-11. But why shouldn't people start to question what's really going on? Since when is deciding to make an informed conclusion over the matter, as opposed to just accepting what one man says to be true, a bad thing?

Jacob1983

If we are going to play the blame game, then there is way more blame on Clinton than Bush when it comes to preventing 9/11. Clinton had way more chances to stop or at least attempt to capture Bin Laden. Clinton had 2 terms to capture Bin Laden. Bush had less than a year.

AlexEvans

There are two aspects to the 'blame game.'

First, the ones really to blame are bin Laden and the Islamists. That isn't in question.

Then there's the argument about could have been better done to stop them. I agree with Jacob1983 that Clinton had many more missed opportunities than Bush, but the important part is to assess what those failed strategies were. Pre-eminently, it was the attempt to deal with terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

As for the claims that Bush knew or was behind what went on, or that Clinton deliberately bombed an aspirin factory instead of fighting al Qaeda, they're absurd and contemptible nonsense.

spent cigarette

I agree with this. I do, however, hold more resentment towards Bush for exploiting what happened on 9-11 so he could do whatever the hell he wanted.

Oh, but it is.

Again, comments that write everything that contradicts what Bush has been telling us off as “absurd” and “nonsense” simply display ignorance. There is plenty of evidence that backs up the idea that Al Qaeda weren’t behind 9-11, and that America was, so while it may still be a bit of a stretch at this moment, it’s without question possible.

ceilirose

I think the blame for what ultimately happend on 9/11 goes back a lot father than what occured during Clinton's Administration. That's not to say that both Clinton and Bush made misteps along the way. They both did. Depending on what side of the political spectrum you're on you'll lean either way. Clinton missed chances to get bin Laden possibly and Bush didn't feel that August 6th Presidential Briefing which stated that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US was that critical. I say possibly in Clinton's case because most of the reasoning has come from the Right and not government sources.

bin Laden is to blame but I think throwing in Islamists is too general a term. It's more a radical group within that religion than the whole religion itself.

I don't know that I believe in these conspiracies but I wouldn't just dismiss them as sick and outright wrong either. Unfortunately we sometimes get filtered information in this country. Bush didn't want an independent 9/11 commission initially. He caved under pressure from the 9/11 families but his resistance to an open investigation will cause some to think that there is something to hide.

Also I learn toward the assumption that terrorism is better fought through the so-called police action vs. military action. All you do is need to look at the US's involvement in Iraq to see the folly of that position.

AlexEvans

Good point, it does go further back. I'm inclined to go easier on presidents before Clinton because they had the Soviet Union to worry about, but certainly some of his predecessors did not deal well with terrorism.

Islamists are the radical group (aka Islamic Fascists etc); the followers of the religion as a whole are Muslims.

We disagree here.

The only person who has actually gone out and destroyed evidence is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor. But while I'm sure he's hiding something embarrassing, I don't consider it reasonable or even sane to accuse the Clinton or any other US Administration of carrying out or allowing attacks on the United States.

A purely law-enforcement approach would mean not only Saddam Hussein still in charge of Iraq, but also al Qaeda and the Taliban still in charge of Afghanistan.

Jacob1983

Sandy Berger? What kind of evidence did he destory and how do you know this? I've never heard of that story. I agree that we should have never used Bin Laden and his guys to fight the Soviets back in the day. That was probably a bad idea. That is interesting though. America loves to blame Bush but no one ever puts the real blame on Bin Laden, lol.

AlexEvans

Berger destroyed documents from the national archive. Here's a CNN story on the case. The sentence is a slap on the wrist.

The extent of bin Laden's involvement with America is hugely exaggerated. Bin Laden at the time was helping the same guys we were helping, the mujaheddin, many of whom later became the Northern Alliance - the same guys who were our allies against bin Laden.

Bin Laden's friends the Taliban were formed in Pakistan after the USSR was already defeated.

ceilirose

It was a reference more to the mistakes the US had made in the Middle East for years rather than being obsessed about the Cold War.

Muslims follow the religion of Islam. There are fundamental Islamists and more moderate ones. I remember a spirited debate on this board about this very fact - the Muslims here then objected to that depiction of Islam (ie Islamists being terrorists). But I could be wrong or off slightly so any people out there who are Muslims may be able to explain it better.

Islamic Fascists is a term the Right Wing loves to throw around. I don't put much into it.

That's not fully correct about Berger -

Stupid move on his part but saying he destroyed the evidence and all that entails isn't correct.

Sandy Berger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not exactly true..the Taliban is alive and well in Afghanistan even after the military action there which I supported fully. It's still quite dangerous there and probably the Taliban is getting stronger than weaker.

I truly believe that Iraq is no better off today than it was pre-2003. Hussein's rape rooms have been replaced by rapes at prisons for Iraqi women - still government sponsored no less. al Queda is stronger than ever. There was a great window of opportunity to take out or isolate bin Laden as a madman after 9/11 but that's gone now. Now a good part of the world think Americans are the crazy ones.

bin Laden poured millions of dollars into mujahideen and they in turn were trained in guerilla warfare by the CIA. I just googled the subject and I don't think it's quite that simple as the mujahideen regrouping into the Northern Alliance. The Taliban came out of the mujahideen and they (the Taliban) and the Northern Alliance were enemies.

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also on that CNN special with Christiane Amanpour - one of bin Laden's bodyguards, chauffeurs? came to the US in the '80's, became an American citizen, married an American, joined the military, went into special forces and then went back to Afghanistan to fight with the mujahideen. He wasn't a member of the US Army in that role.