Conspire`s 9/11 Conspiracies

[raju]

So if these attacks were allowed to happen, perhaps to be used as an excuse for going into Afgahnistan, hasnt that same thing happened before?

At Pearl Harbour?

[NewTeaBag]

I would like to add a little to this thread, but first I'd like to see the evidence that flight 93 landed safely AND the evidence of wat happened to it's passengers and crew afterwards.

Teaser: I used to work in CT and know a little bit more than avg joe about a few things that went down that day.

[daveT]

I think we should go back to that day:

I was working in downtown Cleveland. The towers were on the Jumbo-Tron at Playhouse Square. The entire city stopped. I was a bike-messenger. As I was going from office to office, people were watching television. NO ONE was working. The entire Square was filled with people. The cars on the streets were stopped.

Why bother with the above?

I am trying illustrate how profoundly emotional that day was. Everyone had a frightened look in their eye. Watching people jump out of a building on a 100 foot television is a silencing experience. I never seen eyes in people face look that way they did that day.

We all went home early. The entirety of downtown was evacuated.

The immediate after-math was denial. No one believed that this could happen on our soil. We didn't have the information about how the CIA and FBI didn't communicate back then. We had no idea that the CIA was a political mess. Everyone thought it was insane that four planes could crash because some dudes had a box-cutter.

No one I knew thought anything added up. But maybe it is all denial on our part.

But there is some things to consider.

Bush was the lowest rated president in history at that point, and he was only a few months in his presidency. Even in September 2001, he was suffering the back-lash from the election fraud.

So, as one of my buddies pointed out. "How do you make people like someone they hate? Find someone to hate more."

Right after that day, everything was restricted. Security guards that knew be by name were all of a sudden frightened of me. Screaming and yelling, chasing me down as I went to the elevators. "Whats in your bag? Why do you have a radio?"

"Dude, settle down, you've seen me everyday for the past three years."

Shortly after, I was in Key West. At the port where the tourist ended their journey, there were guards with machine guns walking around.

Bush then needed to go to war, and created the code color system. Every time a dispute arose, the color went to higher alert. Getting heat for cutting down trees in Alaska, give'em a code orange.

Everything did change after that day, and two things were always going on.

The seeds of these conspiracies started because of the contradictions and dualities.

For example, how did they know Osama bin Laden was ivolved the very next day?

I always did question it, but I haven't been convinced it is an out-right conspiracy.

However, if you would ask me if I think Bush would stop the attacks from happening if he knew about it? I don't think he would. Why was he in Texas that morning anyways, right?

[youtalkfunny]

I usually pity conspiracy theorists (aw, poor paranoid soul!), but more often, I scorn them. Often, as in the case of the OP, you can tell by the way he speaks/writes that he's reasonably intelligent, and it is my belief that a reasonably intelligent person has to make an effort to overcome his intelligence in order to swallow some of this nonsense.

I didn't read the entire OP, but I skimmed a line or two here and there. This particular line floored me:


[ QUOTE ]
On 9/11 there were war game exercises taking place (a plane hijacking scenario) many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a reasonably intelligent person, you simply cannot believe that a diversion was conjured up in advance to divert every fighter jet in the United States military to Alaska--except for eight of them, who apparently didn't get the memo.

What were they practicing that day, "Let's see if we can get 10,000 fighter jets to fly in a single formation!"???

If they were holding the biggest "war games exercises" in the history of aviation, there would still be a lot more than eight fighter planes that didn't participate in them.

Think about how many Air Force Bases there are in the continental US. There are four or five good-sized ones in California alone. I'm not even counting the Navy flyers, or Marine Harriers, and don't forget the US Army has more aircraft than the other three branches combined.

Now, imagine that every fighter jet from every AFB in the country was ordered to fly up to Alaska the second week in September--except for Nellis AFB in Las Vegas. Every fighter jet in the country, head north; you boys in Vegas, stand by. Do you think there would only be eight jets standing by???

Nellis is home to the 53rd Wing, the 57th Wing, the 98th Range Wing, and the 99th Wing, and the USAF Air Demonstration Squad (The Thunderbirds). I don't know what any of that means, but I bet they can scrape up more than eight fighter jets.

Please explain to me how you can type something as patently foolish as "many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond."

You don't seem like a foolish person. How do you delude yourself into believing such nonsense?

[youtalkfunny]

It's too close to bedtime, but I can tell I'm going to be spending a big chunk of my week debunking nonsense in this thread. Here's an example:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, how did they know Osama bin Laden was ivolved the very next day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who DIDN'T know bin Laden was involved? I didn't--I had never heard of him. But everyone who HAD heard of him, immediately suspected him

Find a copy of Howard Stern's broadcast that day. When he hears that a second plane hit, he refuses to believe it; when he sees video confirmation of it, the first words out of his mouth are, "Where's bin Laden?"

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush was the lowest rated president in history at that point

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wiki:



His approval rating was about 50% at the time, and his disapproval numbers were in the 30's. Not nearly "the lowest rated president in history at that point".

EDIT: BTW, that's not a poll conducted by a conservative observer like, say, Fox News. Those numbers are from CBS News/NY Times polls.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember hearing alot or sizeable number of important types were absent from work that day (who worked at the WTC)

- Anyone hear about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first plane hit the tower before 9AM. I lot of people, especially the important ones (who in my experience travel a lot and take their time getting into the office) simply were just not in the office yet.

The deathtoll would have been fivefold if the first plane struck the tower at say, 11AM.

[esad]

The main problem with all conspiracy theories like those you listed is that they confuse facts and scientific research for speculation and innuendo. Here's a re-post of something I posted in politics about conspiracy theories in general.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a very comprehensive FAQ that deals with the JFK assassination here.

Section 8 of this FAQ deals with the type of tactics conspiracy books/theorists use to perpetrate their theories.

It's a excellent checklist when reviewing conspiracy theorist's "evidence." Here's a summary, but I'd recommend reading the entire section.


1. Sell emotion first

...powerful emotions flow from the belief in a conspiracy. When these feelings can be established upfront by the conspiracy author, typically by enjoining the reader in the author's own passion, the reader may be persuaded to drop his natural skepticism regarding fantastic plots.

2. Scare the reader away from primary documents

A careful reader would examine reports to check whether it is being accurately represented in the conspiracy books. (It's frequently not.) To forestall this examination, which risks exposing the author's deceit, the report is described as unreadable or utterly worthless.

3. Distort the evidence

Since most people will trust a book, and not double-check its claims against the source material, it is a simple matter to alter the import of the evidence by eliminating key details.

4. Emphasize eyewitness testimony

The weakest major class of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is because of the inherent unreliability of human memory. Not only does memory change over time, even surprisingly short periods, but it is seldom accurate in the first place.

5. Emphasize unsworn witnesses

...interviews given to authors. These are usually conducted in an informal atmosphere, where freewheeling speculation and factual recollection may become mingled. The subject is under no obligation to be truthful, and the author has the freedom to follow suggestive lines of inquiry. The author can also quote out of context since his notes are a private document.

6. Raise non-essential issues

Every piece of evidence has to be challenged. Raising doubts ...even when it is of no import.

7. Omit the complete context of the evidence

Conspiracy authors omit much of the context of their evidence, only it is usually for worse motives than concealing controversy. It is more often to make the evidence sound more sinister than it is.

8. Promote yourself to expert

The vast majority of conspiracy books are written by laymen, persons with no relevant expertise to the technical issues in the case. This is not necessarily a bar to writing a well-researched book. Many generalists make excellent journalists. However, such writers know their limitations and rely on unbiased experts in the various fields. Too many conspiracy authors, on the other hand, pass judgment on technical issues without consulting the real experts.

9. Don't solicit the other side of the story

Often in conspiracy books, the author cites a quote or two, or a memo or handwritten notation, from some person involved with case, and tells us that the person is inconsistent and must therefore be incompetent or have something sinister to hide.

10. Accuse the defenseless

In the great conspiracy hunt, many innuendos get tossed around, suggestive of lying, cover-up, of acquiesence and complicity in extremely serious crimes. However, there is a risk for the conspiracy author of libel sanctions. The careful reader will therefore discern a measure of caution in the way things are worded. Outright accusations are seldom made unless the victim is unable to defend themselves, either because they are public figures who can't legally retaliate, or they are dead.

11. Emphasize preliminary information

...hasty judgments are often poor judgments. If such judgments are made to the press, whether right or not, they become immortalized in print or on film.

12. Recycle discredited evidence

In one of the most seriously deceptive techniques employed by conspiracy books, old issues are raised to provoke the readers' anxiety, but the reader is not informed of the resolution to the issue. It's one thing to dispute the resolution, it's another to conceal it from the unwitting reader.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is a good example of this:

[ QUOTE ]
On 9/11 there were war game exercises taking place (a plane hijacking scenario) many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond. Not to mention mass confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I know someone that was scrambled when the planes begin to hit. There weren't only 8 planes available.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention mass confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to whom? The fighter pilot I know and his wing didn't experience "mass confusion."

But, even though I say that and this information can easily be checked you'll see conspiracy theorists still parrot these same types of "facts" over and over again.

Belief in conspiracy theories is a very good barometer of judging if someone can think logically and distinguish relevant facts from emotion and heresy. Sadly too many people fail this simple test.

[Conspire]

[ QUOTE ]
I usually pity conspiracy theorists (aw, poor paranoid soul!), but more often, I scorn them. Often, as in the case of the OP, you can tell by the way he speaks/writes that he's reasonably intelligent, and it is my belief that a reasonably intelligent person has to make an effort to overcome his intelligence in order to swallow some of this nonsense.

I didn't read the entire OP, but I skimmed a line or two here and there. This particular line floored me:


[ QUOTE ]
On 9/11 there were war game exercises taking place (a plane hijacking scenario) many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a reasonably intelligent person, you simply cannot believe that a diversion was conjured up in advance to divert every fighter jet in the United States military to Alaska--except for eight of them, who apparently didn't get the memo.

What were they practicing that day, "Let's see if we can get 10,000 fighter jets to fly in a single formation!"???

If they were holding the biggest "war games exercises" in the history of aviation, there would still be a lot more than eight fighter planes that didn't participate in them.

Think about how many Air Force Bases there are in the continental US. There are four or five good-sized ones in California alone. I'm not even counting the Navy flyers, or Marine Harriers, and don't forget the US Army has more aircraft than the other three branches combined.

Now, imagine that every fighter jet from every AFB in the country was ordered to fly up to Alaska the second week in September--except for Nellis AFB in Las Vegas. Every fighter jet in the country, head north; you boys in Vegas, stand by. Do you think there would only be eight jets standing by???

Nellis is home to the 53rd Wing, the 57th Wing, the 98th Range Wing, and the 99th Wing, and the USAF Air Demonstration Squad (The Thunderbirds). I don't know what any of that means, but I bet they can scrape up more than eight fighter jets.

Please explain to me how you can type something as patently foolish as "many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond."

You don't seem like a foolish person. How do you delude yourself into believing such nonsense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon reading what u have wrote, I now realize how bad I screwed up when writing out that one about having hardly any fighter jets in the air to protect our country. I know that it is crazy to believe that a diversion could be planned in advance for all the fighters to not be able to respond. It is also crazy to believe a lot of the other things I have said, but if the planes could not have been diverted we could of atleast stopped the airliner crashing into the pentagon, we probably could of stopped the 2 airliners from crashing into the towers. That could not happen because these attacks are part of the plan, to get America into war, and to make lots and lots of money. Take a step back and look at all the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11, during the actual attack, and the cover ups that followed after the attack. To me there seems to be a lot of people slacking off. I got more information on why I believe our skies were unprotected, I just need to find it. For now I ask that u watch this video during 23:00 to 30:00 http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3&hl=en-GB

Also check out this news article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm


I also encourage everyone reading this to atleast browse through this site - http://www.911timeline.net


I will be back later to answer earlier questions (I promise)

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
if the planes could not have been diverted we could of atleast stopped the airliner crashing into the pentagon, we probably could of stopped the 2 airliners from crashing into the towers.

[/ QUOTE ]

how?

No one knew the planes were hijacked until after the first plance crashed into the WTC. Even after they knew there were planes being hijacked they didn't know how many or which ones were being so! Do you know how many commercial airliners are in the air over the U.S. at any give moment? A lot. A lot more than the military can keep tabs on.

You theory is preposterous.