9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?

[Tornado69]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could shed some light on many of these theories but I'm still bound by a few oaths (carrying severe penalties for breaking).

Without link/source proof would yall believe me If I told you the truth was closer to "most of it was allowed but not assisted" and Flight 93 was dropped but didn't fall?

[/ QUOTE ]

My mom had a cousin who worked for the gov't and he basically never existed. He to had an oath and was not allowed to talk about anything. As he told me, he'd basically be picked up put in jail and that would be the rest of his life. He told me a lot of stories about things he'd 'heard' back in places like Afghanistan in the 80's and other wars. He wouldn't tell me a lot of things because he wasn't allowed to. He was a demolision's expert his whole life and he was the one who originally started pointing me towards what really happened on 911. The destruction of the towers and all he said was BS especially building 7. He summed it up as saying he didn't care what experts gave their opinion he knew more about demolitions than almost anyone.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DcifrThs, thanks for the post.

All of this is so [censored] up, to me at least. We comment on how perfectly carried out this attack was, and say it couldn't have been carried out by our bumbling bunch in the white house. But somehow a group of Saudi's carried it out? You serious? One of the guys from the flight school said one of the attackers could barely fly a single engine cesna, but we are suppose to believe he could fly 4(right?) engine jetliner into a building or the pentagon? Really? I mean, most airline pilots go to school for a while or are ex-military, but somehow these four planes were flown by amateurs?

Also, this was all somehow conducted under the nose of the FBI and CIA? Really? Is this really the case?

I know there are reports that other governments warned our government. So either they knew this was coming, and let it happen, or ignored the complaints as bs threats. With this crew we have in office, it could be either. Suppose for a second they let it happen. How does that effect the conspiracy claims? If they let it happen, surely they could or would have helped as well, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you had a decent argument until the end. IF they let it happen, that is far far different than helping. that is crossing a very serious line in everybody's mind.

it is all about what you think is most likely..is it more likely that:

a) a very organized and well funded group of terrorists decided to fly planes into a major monument of NYC and DC and arranged for members to take flying lessons. in this case, if the govt had intelligence that made it likely that an attack could happen, the people who had that info didn't act appropriately or did act ignorantly.

or

b) that the govt knew ahead of time or helped those terrorists execute this plan. OR that they even planned it themselves? in this case, if the govt had intelligence that made it likely that an attack could happen, the people who had that info decided to get in touch with the very terrorists that they are supposed to be attacking and help them.

you all can believe what you want...but i vote a.

also, if you haven't read "the black swan" by nicholas nassim taleb, he notes that even the most preposterous and impactful event can seem predictable and avoidable in hindsight. note though that IF we know on sept. 10th that hijackers would take over planes, we could have taken action to avoid that exact outcome by assuring that the taking over of planes would be more difficult or impossible. by our very knowledge, we'd know how to stop it. that preventability is a mirage though.

so as i said, believe what you want, i stick with what i've stated thus far.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

the argument wasnt even decent up to that point. Flying an airborne jet in good weather is no more difficult than driving a car. Its take off and landing that take intenstive training.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how they kept putting those guys from the magazine up as experts every single time yet they failed to put on demolition experts, pilots, engineers, etc for the 9/11 truth side.

[/ QUOTE ]
ORLY? I watched this show and this expert was featured for one of the points (don't remember which though). I've linked to this article (if you haven't read it you should; very readable) several times in the past and have yet to get any serious response from the conspiracy-guys save for some semantics on the usage of the word "pull".

[HedonismBot]

DcifrThs, what is your point, that 9/11 probably wasn't a conspiracy? That because it is more unlikely that the government would be able to cover this up than to have it be done as reported by terrorists makes it not worth looking in to?

Or are you just pointing out that most people who "fall" for this kind of stuff have poor logic abilities? And if so, does that make it more or less likely that there is a conspiracy?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
DcifrThs, what is your point, that 9/11 probably wasn't a conspiracy? That because it is more unlikely that the government would be able to cover this up than to have it be done as reported by terrorists makes it not worth looking in to?

[/ QUOTE ]

look into it all you want. i'm not gunna tell you what to do. my main point is that the circumstances that make the 911 attack a conspiracy are so unlikely as to be ludicris while the circumstances that make it a terrorist attack are not anywhere near as ridiculous. therefore, i believe it was simply a terrorist attack that at worst was allowed to happen and at best the govt. bungled the handling of.

this falls under occam's razor. i've just explained it in long form in pmy previous posts rather than say "the argument with the least assumptions is likely to be the right one."

[ QUOTE ]
Or are you just pointing out that most people who "fall" for this kind of stuff have poor logic abilities? And if so, does that make it more or less likely that there is a conspiracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

the people who tend to believe in conspiracy arguments, from what i've seen, do tend to be worse logical thinkers than those that don't believe in it. i say this on average and requrie that you DID take time to think about it (otherwise, you'd have the uber religious from the south/midwest who also imo, from experience in the midwest, are definitely not great logicians). this is a different point entirely. when i said "my point is simply" i meant on that line of discussion.

i am not drawing any link to the probability of it being a conspiracy. this is a separate poing and i'm simply stating that imo, if more conspiracy theorists were better logical thinkers, there wouldn't be so many conspiracy theorists imo.

i've stated my overall point in response to your first question.

Barron

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
you're right, this proves the government flawlessly executed or was otherwise involved in the conducting or execution of the attack on sept11.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEHE [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] The day the Bush Administration executes a plan flawlessly, is the day I kiss Bush's bare ass.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you're right, this proves the government flawlessly executed or was otherwise involved in the conducting or execution of the attack on sept11.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEHE [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] The day the Bush Administration executes a plan flawlessly, is the day I kiss Bush's bare ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what i'm sayin!!!

bush & friends execute a perfect plan and NOBODY has spoken up w/ first hand knowledge...not in this lifetime, holmes

Barron

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
He can't say, but he wants you to know that he's really cool and important and knows lots of super-secret stuff that you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can pick up a lot of chicks in D.C. with this kind of position/knowledge. They eat it up....they'll eat you up too....if you really knew.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Without knowing the source (which for some reason you didn't include) then I'm left to agree with L'ennemi here.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bush administration received warnings from Israel, Germany, Egypt, UK, and Russia, amongst others; some very specific.

According to published and confirmed mainstream reports Mohammed Atta was wired $100,000 by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, just prior to the attacks. The man who approved this wire, General Mahmud was meeting with top officials of the US government, including Intelligence Committee Chairmen Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) on the morning of the attacks.

After 9/11, investigations were launched around the world into suspicious pre-9/11 trading that clearly indicated detailed foreknowledge of the attacks. Bloomberg News documented massive spikes in put options (a bet the stock will fall) in specific companies whose stock did in fact fall precipitously once trading opened. Put option expert Phil Erlanger estimated that profits would have been in the billions of dollars. Amr 'Tony' Elgindy exercised trades that suggested prior knowledge of 9-11 as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen pointed out to the court in a recent federal trial.

So, where does this money trail lead? Why have we learned nothing from the SEC about who placed these trades? Do we not have a right to know ?

11 Top Talking Points & Questions

28 Videos Dealing with the Cover Up of 9/11

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DcifrThs, what is your point, that 9/11 probably wasn't a conspiracy? That because it is more unlikely that the government would be able to cover this up than to have it be done as reported by terrorists makes it not worth looking in to?

[/ QUOTE ]

look into it all you want. i'm not gunna tell you what to do. my main point is that the circumstances that make the 911 attack a conspiracy are so unlikely as to be ludicris while the circumstances that make it a terrorist attack are not anywhere near as ridiculous. therefore, i believe it was simply a terrorist attack that at worst was allowed to happen and at best the govt. bungled the handling of.

this falls under occam's razor. i've just explained it in long form in pmy previous posts rather than say "the argument with the least assumptions is likely to be the right one."

[/ QUOTE ]


This is blatantly false and designed to hand-wave. You have to take into account the facts surroundings the events if you are to talk about assumptions and likelyhoods. For example, with the London bombings, the state and it's firms were doing a drill of the exact same event; the same stations, the same time, the same events (terrorist bombs with backpacks and stuff, etc). If you take into account this fact then your notion of assumptions and likelyhoods shifts entirely.

But like I said, your argument is designed to hand-wave and to make people not take into account the fact and to make people not look into the facts, but to just take 'false flag' and 'terrorist event' at face value and then to decide for themselves to say "I think terorrist act is more likely"; why? Well obviously that is how they FEEL about the state and what it would or would not do.

Another version of this argument is to say "well, it's CLEARLY not true because someone would have noticed people coming in and out of the building to place the devices". So the Occam argument seems to apply when you take into account your own views of what the facts are. Then you tell them that there were major unprecedented powerdowns of entire sections of the buildings in the weeks prior with engineers coming in and out, that Marvin Bush was head of security of the WTC, and that they had removed bomb-sniffing dogs, and suddenly their likelyhood and assumptions argument falls dead on it's face because now the facts have changed and they can't simply decide what they feel is likely based on their worldview of the state in a vacuum. People realize this ofcourse so what you immediately get back is that they don't want to accept these facts because then they can't fall back on their feel-good-everything-is-fine state of mind.


Occam razor is fine and all but ONLY if you take into account the facts and and ONLY if you don't let it stop you from being open to the facts.