I also have Questions!

I often hear 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists claim that they are asking the government questions, and they demand answers. Regardless to the fact that you have been given answers by the government and 3rd parties that you conveniently choose to ignore - I've decided I have a few questions myself.

It's very easy to question the official theory and provide "answers" to all the holes in the official story. But now I'm going to throw some questions right back at you, instead of giving you answers.

Please answer these for me. But before I start, I ask that you don't answer my questions with questions or try to provide evidence for the theories. Trust me - I've heard it all before. This post is addressing the MANY logic errors in your theories.

Questions:

Why did the US government declassify Operation North woods to the public if it had anything to do with 9/11?

Why hasn't anyone working at the Pentagon come out to say they saw a cruise missile/drone?

Why hasn't anyone in the general are of the Pentagon come out to say they saw a cruise missile/drone?

Why has no one from the local Gas Station and Hotel near the Pentagon come out to say the tapes they watched before they were confiscated showed something other than a 757?

Why is evidence of a 757 crash present at the Pentagon?

Who supposedly planted the evidence of a plane (including bodies of passengers)?

Why haven't they come out?

Why haven't any military personnel come out to say they fired a cruise missile at the Pentagon?

What makes who think anyone who killed innocent people at the Pentagon could live with that and keep the secret?

Why is there no evidence of a UAV or Cruise Missile at the Pentagon?

Why have none of the families and friends of passengers on flight 77 come out to say the phone calls they received never occurred?

Where did all the passengers go?

Why hasn't anyone confessed to diverting flight 77 and executing the passengers?

WHY NOT JUST HIJACK A PLANE AND CRASH IT THE SAME WAY IT HAPPENED AT WTC1 and WTC2?!

Why aren't Dylan Avery, Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones dead yet?

Why would Popular Mechanics help cover up government involvement in 9/11?

Why would PBS Nova create a documentary about the towers falling that didn't detail anything about bombs or thermite?

Why would everyone at NIST help the government cover up mass-murder?

Why doesn't every respectable structural engineer in the world believe the towers were brought down by demolitions?

Why doesn't the number one demolition company in the world believe the conspiracy?

Why would the lowest ranks of the CIA and FBI help cover up government mass murder?

Why would The American Society of Civil Engineers have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible?

Why would everyone at NORAD help cover up mass murder by the government?

Why would the FAA confirm the existence of planes that apparently never existed?

Why would the Silverstein group who get together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money? Considering the fact Silverstein has lost millions due to 9/11.

Why would American Airlines co-operate with the government killing its employee's?

Why would United Airlines do the same?


Why haven't the scientists who developed remote plane technology come out to say the planes were clearly remotely controlled?

Why haven't the people who placed remote controlled devices into these planes come out?

Why has no one come out saying that they placed explosives in either 3 of the towers that fell?

Why haven't the creators of these new magical explosives come out about their design and how it could be incorporated into the WTC collapses?

Why haven't people at 911 (emergency number) centres come forward saying they never received a call from a passenger on any of the flights?

Why hasn't anyone come forward saying they detonated the demolitions gear in the building?

Why hasn't anyone come forward saying they wired the explosives?

Why didn't the Bush administration blame 9/11 on Iraqi terrorists instead?

Why haven't any of the supposedly alive hijackers come out?

Why didn't the US government kill them before the attack?

Why hasn't the designer of a cruise missile/hologram come out?

Why doesn't the public have anything close to holographic technology that would be needed to artificially create those planes?

Why did Bin Laden admit to the attacks.

Why did other members of Al Qaeda admit to their role in the attacks.

Why hasn't a single person come out to say they worked with the government to pull off 9/11.

Why isn't Al Jazeera touching these theories?

Why aren't the democrats using this 'evidence' that the 9/11 truthies came up with against Bush?

Why get so many people involved when you could just hire Bin Laden to do it?

WHY go to the length of:
--------------------------------------
Stealing the identities of 19 Saudi Arabians and use them as patsies

Re-routing four airlines full of people to secret air bases

Kill everyone on board

Put remote controlled planes in the air (or hologram-ed cruise missiles)

Crash them into the world trade centers

Proceed to demolish the two tallest buildings in NYC risking exposure.

Launch a cruise missile in broad daylight into the Pentagon over a highway full of on-lookers risking further exposure.

Plant pieces of plane at the Pentagon.

Plant bodies of the victims at the Pentagon, WTC's and Pennsylvania

Get Silverstein on your side for insurance money.

Demolish WTC7 with cameras trained on the building.

Plant Mohammad Atta's passport on the street

Crash a plane/missile (whatever you believe) into an empty field for further effect

Trial another suspect publicly

Fake a Bin Laden confession tape

Get THOUSANDS of people doing all of this....

------------------------------------

When all you would have to do to reach the goals 9/11 deniers claim bush was trying to gain from 9/11.... is bomb a few trains and buses.

Why not just get ONE loyal CIA agent to contact Bin Laden and arrange for his fighters to perform a series of car bombings, or even crash ONE plane into the trade towers. Hell, even crash the two planes without demolishing the towers. That would be MORE THAN ENOUGH to start a War on Terror.

The 9/11 Theories are extremely convincing at fist. I USED TO BE A 9/11 CT'er! But seriously guys... look at the logic errors. Step back, breath in and look at it. The logic and reasoning behind these theories is just plain stupid. Sorry to be so blunt...

There are a few holes in the Official story. I'm not going to pretend there isn't. But that doesn't mean that Bush planned 9/11. Bin Laden's reason for attacking the US is far more convincing than Bush's.

Logic guys. Read your story from start to finish. It's just absurd.

Well I'm not going to attempt to answer any of your questions because I think you are an agent of their side.' But you show some kind of innocent quality about you when you say that you cannot understand the power of the state to silence people or to deter them from speaking out or telling the truth. I don't know why you profess this either as a way to justify your views or if you really are ignorant of how the world really works.

For example there is many reasons why people working in the pentagon would not see nor report santa claus if he flew over the pentagon on Christmas eve.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Well I'm not going to attempt to answer any of your questions because I think you are an agent of their side.

They are all valid questions buddy. Funny that you can't answer ONE of them.

As for me being an agent... care to explain why an Australian citizen with no employment in the USA would be working for the US government? Also want to back that up with any proof?

But you show some kind of innocent quality about you when you say that you cannot understand the power of the state to silence people or to deter them from speaking out or telling the truth. I don't know why you profess this either as a way to justify your views or if you really are ignorant of how the world really works.

So Clinton couldn't hide an affair, Nixon couldn't hide watergate, Bush couldn't hide the Iraq mistakes... yet somehow the greatest terrorist attack on US soil is covered up?

I beg to differ on your opinion, I think YOU have absolutley no idea how the world works.

For example there is many reasons why people working in the pentagon would not see nor report santa claus if he flew over the pentagon on Christmas eve.

If Santa dropped a bomb and killed 125 of your co-workers... you wouldn't then say you saw the Easter Bunny instead now would you?

So Clinton couldn't hide an affair, Nixon couldn't hide watergate, Bush couldn't hide the Iraq mistakes... yet somehow the greatest terrorist attack on US soil is covered up?

This is an excellent point you've made, that a lot of the 9/11 fantasists miss - how does anyone suppose that the same people that couldn't cover up Watergate, or a blowjob, manage to orchestrate a conspiracy of this size, on domestic turf and cover it up so completely and successfully?

Hell, the CIA didn't see the Korean War coming, they faired poorly in Vietnam, got the intelligence wrong in Iran in the 70s and couldn't predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then you had the apparent intelligence failures over the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests and the North Korean missile tests. God knows how they'd manage to put together a two-car parade, let alone 9/11.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Well I'm not going to attempt to answer any of your questions because I think you are an agent of their side.

typical CT'er response:

1. you dont want to answer this important questions.
2. saying he is an goverment agent.

i doubt you even read what he wrote...

Why can you not understand how non-sequitur is a logical fallacy?

In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

For example, "If someone committed criminal act x, then surely they would come out and tell us that they did it!"

Or, "If so-and-so wanted to do y, then surely they would have done it this way and any other way means they didn't do it at all!"


A more common example is, "Humans are mammals. A horse is a mammal. Therefore humans are horses."

Any statement that assumes a solid correlation between two ideas when there is none is a non-sequitur, and does not hold up logically as an argument.

All you've done is implied non-sequitur arguments, a whole deadful slew of them, in the form of questions.


As an afterthought, I notice that a lot of the individual assertions you make, on their own, do not hold up to scrutiny. For example, who says everyone at NIST would have to be in on it? Not everyone at NIST even worked on the WTC reports. Not everyone at NIST even did the relevant analyses. And only one person had complete control over the entire investigation, as allowed by Congress. You make similar assertions about NORAD, which was tied up with wargames on 9/11 and was rendered mostly useless anyway. No one really had to be in on it from NORAD.

Another example is "Why hasn't anyone come forward saying they wired the explosives?" Aside from how asinine it is to assume someone MUST come forward, and that you MUST hear from them, you also assume wires were involved. I'm no structural engineer, but I study electronics engineering, and if you believe in remote controls for your TV set that don't use wires, then you can believe in detonator caps that don't use wires.

Many, if not most all of your questions can really be simplified into two forms: "Why haven't the criminals turned themselves in yet?", and "Why didn't the criminals do things this way instead of that way?". You present them as classic non-sequiturs.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Is that now the standard response to any attempted debunking of a particularly-potty conspiracy theory, these days - that the poster's a "disinfo agent"?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Any statement that assumes a solid correlation between two ideas when there is none is a non-sequitur, and does not hold up logically as an argument.

Well then these following statements must also be non-sequiter.




Air was blown out during the collapse, there must be bombs.

There is no video clearly showing a plane hitting the pentagon, it must be a hologram and or cruise missile and or a small military jet.

WTC 1 and 2 fell really fast, it must be a controlled demolition.

And my personal favorite,

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, it must be controlled demolition.





How nice of you to sum up every bit of "evidence" for controlled demolition for what it is.

Non sequiter, it does not follow.

Since these "do not follow" questions, or "coincidences" as many people call it, are invalid to you, it's surprising that you support so many of them when they are in support of demolition theories.

Isn't there a word for that?

Aside from how asinine it is to assume someone MUST come forward, and that you MUST hear from them

Well it's not nearly as asinine as assuming that thousands of people were complicit in mass murder. And then a few more thousands complicit in the cover up.



[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

There's also a term for misrepresenting another's arguments, and that's called a "straw man."

Actually a "straw man" would be picking the weakest arguments presented and then knocking them down to destroy the whole argument.

Unfortunately for the "truth movement" all of their arguments are pretty weak, so it's pretty easy for them to hide behind the straw man defense without actually ever having to prove anything.

And of course they get to hide behind a bunch of "non sequiter" statements and "coincidences" as if that was proof.



[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

Attacking a weak part of a case is attacking a weak part of a case. Misrepresenting an argument as a more absurd argument, and then attacking it, is a straw man. Anyone with 5 seconds to spare on a Google search can corroborate this for themselves, rather than have to take either of our words for it. And now as you degrade into babble not worth responding to, I'm ignoring you again.

It's pretty hard to misrepresent something as absurd when it already is absurd.


Ignoring people, just another way to deny ignorance and seek for "truth".

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's pretty hard to misrepresent something as absurd when it already is absurd.

Lol, so true.

Doctor the problem with most of your questions is that you seem to assume these people care about you. You act like these people owe it to you to tell you everything. These people don't care about you or care whether you know or not. I think you feel that if a couple people in an organization are in on it then they must all be in on it. You ask why the Democrats don't come out. I guess it's also a Democrat/Republican thing as well. According to your logic, Al-Queda couldn't have pulled this off either. Why didn't any of them come out before 9/11 and tell you they knew of this plan? After all, wouldn't there have many many of them in on their side too. Just because you can't keep a secret doesn't mean everyone else can't either. Do you really think you know all the illegal activity of all people in powerful positions? Not all theories are the same. I believe the planes hit the targets, so I can't entertain some of your questions.

No matter what you believe there is no doubt there was and still is a cover-up. Do you really believe Condoleezza Rice could have never even imagined hijacked planes as missiles? Or George W Bush could never have envisioned it? Why are we still getting info that Condolezza Rice has been lying about meetings she had prior to 9/11? She is trying to cover something up, why else would she still be lying? Just investigate the 9/11 Commission and the hearings and a cover-up becomes obvious. You admit there are holes in the official story, where do the holes comes from? Why would there be any holes?

And I'm not really sure how Alex Jones is still alive. I think that was your best question. I've wondered the same thing myself.

Here's some Answers

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Why did the US government declassify Operation North woods to the public if it had anything to do with 9/11?

Operation Northwoods, was a then classified, plan on how to provoke a war with Cuba. This would have been done by a remotely controlled aircraft being flown into Cuban airspace and shot down by the Cuban Air Force. The plane and passengers that were to be the 'victims' of this hostile act, would in fact be safe in a hangar and back to normal life.

WHY NOT JUST HIJACK A PLANE AND CRASH IT THE SAME WAY IT HAPPENED AT WTC1 and WTC2?!

Hijacking an aircraft is not a very easy task, even though the government made it look like that. It takes years and years of planning for an attack like this to take place. It also takes a lot of scouting of the airlines to see what routes and carriers that would be a perfect one to hijack and crash it into something. It also takes years for targets of the attacks to be scouted out.

Why doesn't every respectable structural engineer in the world believe the towers were brought down by demolitions?

I honestly believe that there are some very well respected structural engineers that believe it was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down. Here's the thing that kind of dilutes the controlled demolition theory. That is, when the South Tower started to collapse, the top of the building tilted to about twenty degrees to the left of the television screen.

Why haven't people at 911 (emergency number) centres come forward saying they never received a call from a passenger on any of the flights?

The reason why that no dispatcher has came forward is because the evidence to the 911 calls being recieved is on the tapes. Every 911 call in this country is recorded on tape in case it is needed to be played back again in the future. Also, it is a requirement that these calls are recorded.

Why haven't the scientists who developed remote plane technology come out to say the planes were clearly remotely controlled?

This is because that the government knows who came up with and the specific reason as to why the remote controls were developed. Way back in 1984, NASA along with the FAA did a fuel flamability test somewhere out in the California desert. The plane that was used was a Boeing 720, the cousin of the Boeing 737 in size and weight. The test nearly went off without a hitch until the plane was put on final approach to the target. The plane struck a light tower, bursting into flames and ripping the right wing clean off the aircraft. Now you know why no body in the government has came forward about this.

Why aren't the democrats using this 'evidence' that the 9/11 truthies came up with against Bush?

The Democrats are focusing on the issues at hand right now, plus it would be a bad move the them to use the evidence against the current administration. If that were to happen, who knows what it would make the democratic party look like. That is, if they use this argument against Bush while it's a mid-term election. it would make them look like a bunch of nutcases. Not that I am calling Conspiracy Theorists 'nutcases,' which I am not. If that were to happen, people will start mocking the democratic party for being way to gullible.




[edit on 11/4/2006 by gimmefootball400]

I'll try a few of these:

Why did the US government declassify Operation North woods to the public if it had anything to do with 9/11?

The same reason they declassified and publically posted documents retrieved in Iraq that laid out how to make nuclear devices and then had to turn around this past week and pull them from the web after concerned people gave them the heads up they had revealed too much.

Oversight I suppose. The Northwood document was released after a certain amount of time had passed. It was probably released with a lot of other documents that had come up for declassification because of the time passage.

Concerning a lot of your other questions:

I believe they are logical, good questions. I do not support the no plane theories, so they would be the same questions I have. I do support looking into 911 and the unanswered questions that surround the attack. I don't believe the government did 911. But I can't rule out the possibility they may have allowed 911. That's why I continue to look into it. That's also why I don't think it is a logical thing to do to just dismiss the Northwood documents. I have "no dog in this hunt", no theory I back or support, I just continue to look at the information that can be accumulated on the event so that I can have as full of a picture as possible.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Valhall]

The original post puts forth to us some very good questions to which I have yet to see even an attempt to answer. However I can't tell if the author is actually looking for answers to these questions or just trying to prove a point by asking them. I think its a good start, and maybe some of the more diehard CT'ers will offer up some decent answers. (notice I said answers) The last one probably being the most important. Why go to the length of.......

The "logical fallacy" argument was a nice try. Since the post doesn't offer an actual argument "logical fallacy" can't be applied. The author simple asked for answers to his questions. Humans are mammals. (true(arguably)) Horses are mammals. (true) Therefore humans are horses. (false) You have to remove the words "humans" and "horses". I digress...

In another post an attempt was made to answer some of the questions in the original post. These answers however seemed to either agree that there isn't a conspiracy or only left the question unanswered at its core. Skirted the question so to speak.

I cant answer any of them based on the limited theories I have read so far here. (I have not read them all) I feel a bit let down though cause I do believe that something is not quite right about the events in question. I guess I am a little let down by some of the more seasoned CT'ers. I expected more to jump on this.

Time will tell I guess.

Originally posted by xout1
The "logical fallacy" argument was a nice try. Since the post doesn't offer an actual argument "logical fallacy" can't be applied.

It isn't hard to realize that these are non-sequiturs posed as questions.

Without having to point that out, the simple answer to all of those questions would be, "You are making assumptions that you have failed to support in your post." I pointed out a few of them in particular in my first post on this thread.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Questions:

Why did the US government declassify Operation North woods to the public if it had anything to do with 9/11?

Operation Northwoods had nothing to do with 911. It was put in loosechange to show (correctly) that the US military complex had no problem terrorizing or killing its own citizens. Oh and released because of the FOIA, being australian do you know what that is?

Why hasn't anyone working at the Pentagon come out to say they saw a cruise missile/drone?

Noone "saw" because for some reason, Cheney, when watching the plane approach the pentagon, make a loop and head back towards the pentagon, didnt feel it was in the best interest to evacuate the pentagon like they did the whitehouse. (even though the plane obviously wasnt headed there after the "5 mile mark" as noted by the secretary of transportation. funny huh. Several people did say the "smelled cordite", but personally, i dont have enough info to buy the cruise missile. and most truthers including the scholars for 911truth, dont even argue that theory, or the hologram one.

Why hasn't anyone in the general are of the Pentagon come out to say they saw a cruise missile/drone?

A gentleman wearing a yellow polo whos name escapes me: "it looked like a cruise missile with wings". which is probably where the whole missile theory came from.

Why has no one from the local Gas Station and Hotel near the Pentagon come out to say the tapes they watched before they were confiscated showed something other than a 757?

If that happened at a gas station i worked at i wouldnt even think to look at a video, id be more interested in watching outside. I never heard any names, only the loosechange guys say, "they watched in horror". I doubt they were watched before they were confiscated. Prob. just another theory stemming from the fact that FBI confiscated them. Although i dont know what investigative significance that it would show....Rumsfeld: well, the citgo tape verifies it, a plane did in fact hit the pentagon.....(not actual quote)

Why is evidence of a 757 crash present at the Pentagon?

Maybe because it did. Or maybe because it was planted. either way this doesnt matter, they still got their wars, which according to 911 truthers is the whole point of 911 wether inside job or allowed.

Who supposedly planted the evidence of a plane (including bodies of passengers)?

See above answer. These are all questions regarding a 'theory' that most dont bother trying to argue and only few believe. because A)irrelevancy to motive, and B) doesnt matter if it was planted or not.

Why haven't they come out?

Same reason lyndie england didnt come forth about "abu grab" (anyone see the humor in that) or why people work for Area 51 and dont talk about it, or how Operation Northwoods was kept secret from the masses for half a century, are you implying we will know everything that the government wants kept secret.

Why haven't any military personnel come out to say they fired a cruise missile at the Pentagon?

Enough with the cruise missile. But if you were ordered to fire, would you run back home and say " mom dad, guess what the military made me do."

What makes who think anyone who killed innocent people at the Pentagon could live with that and keep the secret?

Same reason that John Wayne Gacy could have sex with and murder 20some boys, bury them in his basement and never feel guilty enough to come forward with it. Also your murderers and there friends all banked off of this. Try to part a man from his money.

Why is there no evidence of a UAV or Cruise Missile at the Pentagon?

Sigh.........