No, where's the evidence that fully and unequivocally supports the official report first. Then we can deal with the 'conspiracy' theory.
Chat Forum
[closed]
I remember when 911 was a type of Porsche...
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Elf - wrong way round.
!) - the official report is the accepted truth with a lot of good evidence behind it. Most of the data is in the public domain.
2) Teh conspiracy theory needs to show it is more credible than the official reports. To do this it needs to have compelling evidence. lets hear some compelling evidence the official report is wrong.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The thing is that I can understand people's reluctance to accept the "official report", due to the chequered history over their validity i.e. the Kennedy assassination, the report into the invasion of Iraq, the recent BP findings into their own Gulf of Mexico disaster etc etc.
I actually am quite convinced that the Bush administration knew that the attacks were going to take place. Now I don't have any hard evidence for this, just a deep distrust of the man and his cronies. It kinda reminds me of the theory that Churchill knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbour beforehand, and did nothing, because he knew it would bring the USA into the war. However, I very much doubt that Bush would go the lengths of flying planes into the buildings, and undertaking a controlled demolition at the same time. But did they do anything to stop it? Not so sure...
Posted 1 year ago # -
What would be the point of conspiring to demolish the towers? I'm not sure what this could possibly achieve beyond the shock of having 2 jumbo jets flown into them. Even if the towers had withstood that, there would still have been many hundreds of innocent deaths and more than ample outrage in the general populace. Whether the towers stood or fell was pretty irrelevant, it was seeing the planes fly into them that is the enduring image.
Posted 1 year ago # -
lets hear some compelling evidence the official report is wrong
If the overwhelming evidence hadn't been buried or hidden then it wouldn't be a theory anymore and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The best argument against the conspiracy is the easiest one:
Do you honestly think that something this big could be covered/hidden by the Government never mind actually organised by them?!
Clinton couldn't even get a quiet blow job in his private office without the world finding out, how the hell can you think that hundreds of Government officials conspired to hijack 4 planes, to plant explosives in occupied buildings with no-one noticing anything? That not one of the hundreds of people who must have been in on it has actually blown the whistle. The Bush Administration couldn't have organised a piss-up in a brewery. Bush Jr ran an oil company for a while which went bust (bailed out by Daddy with no criminal charges ever brought). Yes they were corrupt, unbelievably stupid and not fit to run a bath never mind the worlds biggest superpower but that's all the more reason why the Administration couldn't have been in on it.
Look at the footage as events unfold, none of the officials have a clue what is happening or about to happen; Bush is in Air Force 1 circling hopelessly over Florida, White House staff are in the bunker - is that ALL acted? A very clever rehearsed play where they're all pretending not to understand or are they actually as dumbstruck as the rest of the world was. I'll go with answer 2 thanks.
It's probable that the whole truth hasn't been heard and probably never will be but believing the Administration organised it/let it happen to further it's own ends is preposterous.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's very easy to label an administration as being "stupid", because it buries the the actual issues that underlie the problem and resolves us of any responsibility of doing anything about them. It's a bit like how people love to proclaim that all serial killers are "insane": It is easier than accepting that someone would actually want to commit those crimes, and ultimately relinquishes us of any collective responsibility.
I think the Bush admin. was perfectly capable of "letting it happen" to further their aims. I certainly don't think they planned it, I don't believe they carried out a controlled demolition, but I would not put it past them to have known about it in advance and did nothing to prevent it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"If they wanted to have a controlled demolition, they could have just done that and claimed it was a car bomb. No need to bother crashing several planes as well."
This one for the win... Conspiracy theorists are quick to say building 7 was demolished but nobody ever comes up with a reason. They say the main towers were demolished but then why the planes? It's the conspiracy boy's elephant in the room, obviously for them it's enough to think "Oh, conspiracys are what governments do". It makes no sense so it's sensible to discard it. IMO of course Even if you believe the motivation, the method is ludicrous.
+1 to this.
Whenever something like this comes up, the pro-conspiracy types like to imagine that people who don't agree with them are mindless idiots ("sheeple" might get used here) who just believe whatever they've been told and don't apply any critical thinking or scepticism to it at all. Whereas for the most part I think people do think about it but they apply exactly the same critical thinking and scepticism to the conspiracy theories, and they are typically full of holes. They require the Govt (or whoever) to have simultaneously shown more competence than you might reasonably expect on past evidence, and at the same time left glaring bits of 'evidence'.
I doubt anyone on here thinks the official version is the last word on the subject, but that doesn't mean any ill-thought out gubbins has any credibility.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Exactly, the only facts here are:
Planes hit buildings and were brought down
Buldings caught fire
Buildings collapsed
Lots of people died.The rest is just castle building in the sky without evidence.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Oh look more supposition and theory but no evidence.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thats the link I was looking for last night after a few bevvy's Elfin.
It seems we have about a 50/50 split sheeples and sceptics (cheers MrSalmon hadn't heard that one before) It has certainly caused a fair bit of debate anyway.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elf and others - what's the motive?
Why do it?
It's possible that Bush would've faked a terrorist attack and murdered thousands for some nefarious gain, but what would that be?
Having no morals when it comes to lining your own pockets is one thing. I just can't work out what the point of any of it would be.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elf and others - what's the motive?
To gain massive international support for the invasion of Iraq (to finish off what Bush snr din't), to impose US imperialism globally, to gain control of and undermine foreign oil markets, to create and then demonise the perceived 'enemy', to demonstrate US weapons products, to use the concept of Fear of Terrorism to impose stricter and stricter controls on public liberty, thus ensuring little effective opposition.
Oh look, it worked...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Worked in London too with Blair and the Bus bombings...
//opens another can of worms and runs for cover.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think you've hit the nail on the head Effin......George Bush was the sort of guy who needed a proper reason for going to war.
Just one question though, why Afghanistan which had no oil, and not Saudi Arabia where the terrorists came
from ?Posted 1 year ago # -
why Afghanistan which had no oil
control of the opium fields production has gone through the roof since they have been there
EDIT poppy fields or whatever it is they make smack out of
Posted 1 year ago # -
So George Bush was after increasing opium production then ?
Cunning.
Posted 1 year ago # -
To gain massive international support for the invasion of Iraq
Everyone knew that Iraq was nothing to do with Sept 11th except the idiot underclass (tounge in cheek alert).
I simply do not believe that anyone defined as other than clinically insane or delusional would hatch such a stupid plot. It just does not make any sense at all. Even for an amoral evil politician. People just don't work that way. For start, the risks involved would have been utterly astronomical. If found out you'd basically go down in history only one step down from Pol Pot and Hitler. Canny politicians just DO NOT do stuff like that!
One the one had you've got a totally plausible situation with terrorists using easily hijackable planes as weapons - so plausible in fact that it's been in at least two novels. On the other, you've got one of the most stratospherically ludicrous and tenuous plots ever to have existed - if you wrote it into a film critics would have slammed it as just stupid.. so why on earth do you choose the latter?
It's a perverse kind of romanticism I think.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I also read somewhere thats it's the ideal location to invade Russia from and start WW3, although I'm not reading too much into that one.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elfinsafety - Member
Why Afghanistan which has no oil?
So George Bush hatched this plan in 2001 to destroy the World Trade Center because he knew that in 2010 they would find huge mineral deposits in Afghanistan ?
The guy was an absolute genius ..... truly.
And when I think of all the stick he got about being being thick/stupid.
Still, he didn't reckon on you, eh Effin ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Stop calling me Effin then I might respond to you. Why do you always have to be so rude?
(BTW it's long been known there are enormous mineral deposits in Afghanistan. Why do you think the Russians were there?)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not to mention the huge opium and cannabis crops in Afgahnistan?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not to mention the huge opium and cannabis crops in Afgahnistan?
I did mention it a few posts back over the page... pay attention U31
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elfinsafety - Member
"To gain massive international support for the invasion of Iraq"
Then why was it such an awful fit? If the attack was custom-built to give a reason to attack Iraq you'd expect that it might have been, well, a reason to attack Iraq. Obviously it did the job but if you assume that the whole thing was a conspiracy why no miraculously intact Iraqi passports?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mikey74
I think the Bush admin. was perfectly capable of "letting it happen" to further their aims. I certainly don't think they planned it, I don't believe they carried out a controlled demolition, but I would not put it past them to have known about it in advance and did nothing to prevent it.Again, we come back to the point I made earlier - all that footage of officials running round in blind panic, Bush circling aimlessly over Florida before being flown to some bunker then moved again, you're saying that all of that was acted out?
In the months leading up to it various intelligence agencies had picked up increased chatter about some sort of terrorist event, that is known. None of them were sharing their information with any other agency so a full picture was never built up and the bits that were there were ignored by a complacent Administration that believed itself impregnable, certainly to something of that magnitude. As some one else mentioned above, that's why it succeeded, because it was so wildly improbable, no-one who did pick up the hints of a threat took it seriously.
Agencies were aware of a slightly increased risk, they certainly didn't know about anything that big and therefore by definition didn't deliberately allow it to happen. It could be argued that they inadvertently allowed it to happen by being lazy/incompetent/stupid/complacent but it wasn't a deliberate allowance with a plan behind it all, the Bush Administration simply wasn't smart enough for that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elfinsafety - Member
Stop calling me Effin then I might respond to you. Why do you always have to be so rude?
(BTW it's long been known there are enormous mineral deposits in Afghanistan. Why do you think the Russians were there?)
WTF your name's not Effin ????
BTW if "it's long been known there are enormous mineral deposits in Afghanistan" why is your link BBC News dated 14 June 2010 ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I suspect E&S of trolling to be honest.
As for mineral deposits - you do realise you don't have to invade a country to get those, don't you? You just have some giant multinational mining companies wave big sums of cash and jobs in front of the locals and move in. Then you use cheap labour and screw the administrations and workers alike.
There are loads of experts giving testimony on both sides, correct. I'd not read anything into it though. It's been shown many times that people's memories of things are very fallible, and their interpretation of evidence very susceptible to their own feelings. So given all the insane hype around the subject, it's probably fairly worthless.
Let's put it another way. If you punched a huge hole in a massive skyscraper and lit a fire spanning many floors and half of the floor area, why would you expect it to stay standing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
It seems we have about a 50/50 split sheeples and sceptics
But whatever you believe the Govt/Bush might or might not be prepared to do, Occam's Razor still applies.Posted 1 year ago # -
Oh here we go someone trying to sound clever by using the old 'Occams Razor' line...
Actually it sounds like a good name for a Turkish Barbers....
As for mineral deposits - you do realise you don't have to invade a country to get those, don't you? You just have some giant multinational mining companies wave big sums of cash and jobs in front of the locals and move in.
Erm that works in most places, but not Afghanistan. You'd need stability in the region before mining and exploration teams could go in, and to establish stability, you'd probably need to use military force against local 'insurgents'.
Oh....
Posted 1 year ago # -
You'd need stability in the region
Like in Angola?
What is in Afghanistan that there is such a shortage of that we'd need to concoct the world's most elaborate hoax to get to?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Oh here we go someone trying to sound clever by using the old 'Occams Razor' line..
OK, if you think that 'sounds clever':
But whatever you believe the Govt/Bush might or might not be prepared to do, why disregard the most plausible explanation in favor of a far more implausible one?
Posted 1 year ago # -
why disregard the most plausible explanation in favor of a far more implausible one?
Cos it's exciting and interesting. Some people can't quite deal with the fact that there might not be mystery and intrigue. Some kind of subconscious reaction against the boring and obvious.
Posted 1 year ago # -
why disregard the most plausible explanation in favor of a far more implausible one?
years and tears of hollywood conditioning.. this was planned in walt disneys golden era.. they just needed to wait for the internet to be invented..
it's true.. I recieved the info through coded broadcasts during strictly come dancing.. you can ask my nan.. she was there.. only she has alzheimers..
VERY convenient nan... perhaps TOO convenient
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
