Thread: 9/11

P.S. Also, if you suspect that 9/11 was a "false flag operation" and "inside job," the simplest possible conspiracy theory is this:

19 hijackers who were hired by the US government (i.e., they weren't "Al Qaeda operatives") hijacked four planes, three of which hit their targets, and the intense heat of burning jet fuel was sufficient to cause massive destruction and loss of life.

And before you start speculating about "controlled detonation" and explosives secretly planted in the WTC buildings, you need to rule out the above theory -- otherwise, you're just "multiplying entities without necessity."

Similarly, if you think there was a conspiracy within the federal government, you should rule out the possibility of a "Tiny Rogue Cabal" inside the CIA before you start suggesting that the conspiracy went all the way to the White House. (Occam's Razor tells you to prefer a minimum number of conspirators, rather than a huge number of conspirators, since every additional conspirator is an additional traitor or whistleblower or accidental leaker.)

Finally, you need to give some thought to a coherent motive. The idea that Bush planned the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq makes very little sense to me -- since the 9/11 attacks did not use WMDs, yet the justification given for the Iraq War was the supposed danger that Saddam had a stockpile of WMDs. (If Bush planned the 9/11 attacks because he wanted to invade Iraq, why didn't he arrange for some biological warheads or a radioactive "dirty bomb" to be smuggled onto one or more of the airplanes? Or, conversely, why didn't he try to argue that "Saddam is illegally stockpiling X-acto knives and box-cutters"?)

Another line of thought is that the Gummint planned the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to Take Away All Our Freedoms. ("We'll sweep into power with a degree of control that will make martial law look like anarchy" -- Angela Lansbury, The Manchurian Candidate).

Trouble is that such a complete loss of freedom never actually happened. Yes, some aspects of the Patriot Act had the potential to be gradually corrosive of civil rights, and people were quite right to be alarmed that the Patriot Act set "troubling legal precedents." But there's a difference between "gradual corrosion" and the outright suspension of the Constitution. It seems unlikely to me that the Government would go to all the trouble of murdering 3,000 citizens (and temporarily crippling the nation's financial center) as a pretext for passing some laws that were notably NOT very draconian.

With respect to conspiracy theories, I always apply Occam's Razor:

"other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."

IE, did the US government orchestrate a complex disaster, which would involve the silence/compliance of thousands of people
OR, did angry people from countries which we have had wars with, avenge their dead by attacking the World Trade Center.

I stand by the basic premise. Granted, many questions exist, serious questions, such as why Bin Laden's family was allowed out of the US when no one else was allowed to fly. But I do not necessarily believe that contradicts the main premise.

As Crocodile so adroitly pointed out (только если бы я умела так свободно писать по-русски!), evidence is needed for these conspiracy theories, before any of them can be taken seriously.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Deborski

With respect to conspiracy theories, I always apply Occam's Razor:

"other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."

IE, did the US government orchestrate a complex disaster, which would involve the silence/compliance of thousands of people
OR, did angry people from countries which we have had wars with, avenge their dead by attacking the World Trade Center.

I stand by the basic premise. Granted, many questions exist, serious questions, such as why Bin Laden's family was allowed out of the US when no one else was allowed to fly. But I do not necessarily believe that contradicts the main premise.

As Crocodile so adroitly pointed out (только если бы я умела так свободно писать по-русски!), evidence is needed for these conspiracy theories, before any of them can be taken seriously.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I always apply Occam's razor too. But the evidence is needed for the official version too! And all the evidence we have says it was done by the American government. There is no need to make all the people silent because the American authorities have information power and can always call such people "conspirologists". Americans simply believe that their government can't be so cruel and they are ready to believe everything but that version, no matter how many arguments are given in its support.

Originally Posted by Marcus

But the evidence is needed for the official version too!

I agree, there are several major flaws in the 'official version'.

Originally Posted by Marcus

And all the evidence we have says it was done by the American government.

I disagree, there's no such evidence. The farthest you could go is to claim the US government knew something was to happen, but they didn't take sufficient precautions to deal with that. Took it lightly, so to speak. Any government is just an always-quarreling group of selfish smug bureaucrats and nothing more. How do you imagine the US government design it? George W. Bush calls John Ashcroft to his ranch, they have some beer and a nice BBQ steak and then Bush calls Ashcroft aside and says something like: "Hey, John, we are unpopular this season, let's crash some airplanes onto some buildings in NYC and whatever's left we'll dump on the Pentagon, how do you like that idea, dude?"

Seriously speaking, the places like the FBI, the CIA, etc. are constantly conveying internal tests of their employees. The tests are of the various nature, among them are the loyalty tests of various kinds. Among them, the higher management is asking the lower management to pass some classified info to their subordinates and see if the subordinates are loyal and would report the incidents to the higher management. If you call you bosom friend in the FBI and ask them to trait their organization, they will agree with you 100% and the very next thing they would report on you to their management and one level up simply because they would think it's just another test. So, no. The US government has nothing to do with the design and the performance of the 9/11. Until you present a proof, which would really prove and not just suspect, you have no right going on blaming the US government.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree, there are several major flaws in the 'official version'.

I disagree, there's no such evidence. .

Really? How so? Based on what?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you both (yourself and Marcus) can't be right.

911 Proof

9-11 Research: The Evidence

Read through tons of links and investigate all claims and for me, it keeps coming back as enough evidence. I'm not sure how you conclude there isn't. You still haven't said.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Really? How so? Based on what?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you both (yourself and Marcus) can't be right.

911 Proof

9-11 Research: The Evidence

Read through tons of links and investigate all claims and for me, it keeps coming back as enough evidence. I'm not sure how you conclude there isn't. You still haven't said.

Here's the thing. Don't get me wrong - it's not like I blindly believe everything Bush administration said. (Iraq's WMDs are the best in that respect.) I suggest putting those 'proofs and sufficient evidence' to a real test. I dare you to take the US government to court with those and try to convince the judge that you case at least has a merit. That is going to be a historical "14Russian vs the US Government" case. If you do that, I'll go over those links to refresh my mind (since I was interested in that topic long ago and I think I found an answer for myself). Sounds fair?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Here's the thing. Don't get me wrong - it's not like I blindly believe everything Bush administration said. (Iraq's WMDs are the best in that respect.) I suggest putting those 'proofs and sufficient evidence' to a real test. I dare you to take the US government to court with those and try to convince the judge that you case at least has a merit. That is going to be a historical "14Russian vs the US Government" case. If you do that, I'll go over those links to refresh my mind (since I was interested in that topic long ago and I think I found an answer for myself). Sounds fair?

Вы считаете, что провокации невозможны? Да ими полна история. Но для того чтобы предоставить неопровержимые доказательства нужен доступ к архивам, чего американское правительство предоставлять не будет.
Как можно не верить в то, что это могло сделать американское правительство, но верить в то, что это могли сделать несколько террористов, не связанных ни с какой спецслужбой мира?

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

P.S. Also, if you suspect that 9/11 was a "false flag operation" and "inside job," the simplest possible conspiracy theory is this:

19 hijackers who were hired by the US government (i.e., they weren't "Al Qaeda operatives") hijacked four planes, three of which hit their targets, and the intense heat of burning jet fuel was sufficient to cause massive destruction and loss of life.

And before you start speculating about "controlled detonation" and explosives secretly planted in the WTC buildings, you need to rule out the above theory -- otherwise, you're just "multiplying entities without necessity."

Similarly, if you think there was a conspiracy within the federal government, you should rule out the possibility of a "Tiny Rogue Cabal" inside the CIA before you start suggesting that the conspiracy went all the way to the White House. (Occam's Razor tells you to prefer a minimum number of conspirators, rather than a huge number of conspirators, since every additional conspirator is an additional traitor or whistleblower or accidental leaker.)

Finally, you need to give some thought to a coherent motive. The idea that Bush planned the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq makes very little sense to me -- since the 9/11 attacks did not use WMDs, yet the justification given for the Iraq War was the supposed danger that Saddam had a stockpile of WMDs. (If Bush planned the 9/11 attacks because he wanted to invade Iraq, why didn't he arrange for some biological warheads or a radioactive "dirty bomb" to be smuggled onto one or more of the airplanes? Or, conversely, why didn't he try to argue that "Saddam is illegally stockpiling X-acto knives and box-cutters"?)

Another line of thought is that the Gummint planned the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to Take Away All Our Freedoms. ("We'll sweep into power with a degree of control that will make martial law look like anarchy" -- Angela Lansbury, The Manchurian Candidate).

Trouble is that such a complete loss of freedom never actually happened. Yes, some aspects of the Patriot Act had the potential to be gradually corrosive of civil rights, and people were quite right to be alarmed that the Patriot Act set "troubling legal precedents." But there's a difference between "gradual corrosion" and the outright suspension of the Constitution. It seems unlikely to me that the Government would go to all the trouble of murdering 3,000 citizens (and temporarily crippling the nation's financial center) as a pretext for passing some laws that were notably NOT very draconian.

Based on what?

There are many theories for that but your conclusion that jet fuel took the towers down is laughable. Where did you get that idea? Are you an expert on melting metal and temperatures?

Also, the official explanation is that fire and fragments from the other buildings brought it down but there has been much debate on the plausibility of that scenario. I happen to agree with it. Most of the official scientific explanation are from paid engineers with Government connections, not independent bodies or neutral experts.

Also, I asked people to check out the PBS video but no one did. Big surprise. If you come up with theories, try to explain why you reached that conclusion with more weight than just parroting what the Government statements were.

Building No. 7 had a 'symmetrical, box-like collapse', where all four corners, and all four facades of the building fell simultaneously straight to the ground. Look at the speed in which the building fell. It's a 576-foot tall building and most concur with the estimates that it fell in 6.5 seconds. If you want to argue on common sense and quick theorizing then I can do the same, right? Does that make sense? From fire?!?