1.) That 9/11 was an "inside job," perpetrated by the U.S. government against its own citizens.

Not a terribly original conspiracy theory. We see similar conspiracy theories going back to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (and the "cover-up" thereafter). The attack on Pearl Harbor has been blamed on FDR's administration, which supposedly had information of the attack in advance and did nothing to prevent it. The assassination of JFK, of course, has its own kingdom of conspiracy theory, most of which implicates the U.S. government. The fiery raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the later bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City generated a world of conspiracy theory in the 1990s, also. The point is, Americans have always, fairly or unfairly, shared a cynical view of their government and are more than ready to blame it for any disaster that may befall us. This is more a comment on the psychology and gullibility of the American people than anything else.

2.) That 9/11 was an excuse for government action to limit and/or remove our American liberties.

Curiously, there were more acts of terror (both foreign and domestic) on American soil during the ten years PRIOR to 9/11, as well as more danger to our liberties. In 1992, government agents swarmed a homestead in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, killing and wounding members of the family that lived there (the U.S. government later paid the survivors a settlement of some $5 million). Al Qaeda, obsessed even back then with bringing down the Twin Towers, financed the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, killing 6 people and injuring over a thousand. That same year, government agents swarmed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, resulting in a deadly fire that killed 76 people. In retaliation, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed in 1995 by anti-government terrorists, killing 168 and injuring over 800 people. To all appearances, there was a very real war of terrorism happening right under our noses, with terrorists on BOTH sides of the battlefield.

During that time, legislation was proposed (and defeated) to suspend and/or heavily regulate the sale of many common consumer goods — from kitchen matches and plastic bottles to gasoline and garden fertilizers — for fear of their potential as bomb-making components. New and more stringent gun laws were proposed and enacted (notably the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), and domestic spying on American citizens (particularly militia groups) was in full swing. America was only a step away from severe loss of liberty at that point, yet it didn't happen. Most interesting is that 9/11 seems to have marked the END of terrorism on American soil, and it's been fairly quiet for the last 6 years, compared to the 1990s.

3.) That 9/11 was engineered as a justification for large-scale American military occupation of the Middle East (presumably to exploit local oil reserves).

This one is a no-brainer. We (the United States) import less than 20% of our crude oil from the Middle East. We import nearly that much (18%) from Canada. It would have been far easier for us to blame Canada for the attacks of 9/11 and invade them instead, if it was only oil we were after. Or even Mexico, which is sitting on one of the largest oil reservoirs on the planet (ever wonder why we're so accommodating to their illegal immigrants?).

There is something to be said, however, for our establishing a major Western military presence in the Middle East. Granted, we already HAVE an extremely Western-friendly military presence in the area, and that is our little nuclear-tipped friend, Israel. With the growth of Middle Eastern weapons technology and the hostility of countries in that region toward Israel, I can believe that 9/11 provided the impetus we needed to go in there and level the playing field. Remember, it's NOT about oil. It's ALL about Israel.

...more to come.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/13/2007 by Doc Velocity]

1: Who was behind the attack.

- All the 'Powers that Be' knew it was OBL... except for OBL.




2: Why was Nothing done to prevent this.

- Forewarning was given, no precautions taken. Many Intelligence reports stated this was going to happen.
- After the first WTC bombing back in the 90's, defenses were still minimal.


3. With all the evidence given, why does all the destruction that day appear to have had HELP by unknown conspirators.

- Buildings falling when they shouldn't, defenses not where they should be, etc.



4. Why such a risky avenue taken, when the same results could have been aquired by other means with less chance of failure.

- Individual bombings at key centers, Ocean liners, malls, etc.
- Not having 'all your eggs in one basket'.



5. And the most important question with many answers.... Who gained the most from these attacks.

- ALQ has been run into the ground, OBL has been on the run - hiding in caves.
- Mega contracts awarded for military purposes
- New rules & regs erupted from the attacks, much more monetary support for all the 'three letter agencies'.
- People debate the utter chaos the economy is going through because of this, but read between the lines and see the big picture. Who's really losing money off this.


May not be what your looking for, but makes me feel good for contributing.

4.) That 9/11 complicity was used as an EXCUSE for the United States to "illegally" invade Iraq and destroy Saddam Hussein's regime.

There is probably more than a grain of truth to this — you might remember that Saddam Hussein once offered a million-dollar bounty for the assassination of George H.W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush. This, frankly, would piss me off, too (and we Texans don't take kindly to folks threatenin' our daddies. 'Specially a got damned foreigner).

However, there were more than enough legitimate and legal reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Hussein's words, actions, and inactions over the previous 10 years had been repeatedly condemned by the international community, causing the United Nations Security Counsel to issue some 16 resolutions (and at least 30 official U.N. statements) calling for Iraq's compliance in destroying its WMD capability, returning Gulf War prisoners, and allowing U.N. weapons inspectors free access within Iraq, among other things. Hussein was not only ejecting U.N. weapons inspectors, he was BOASTING about his weaponry, taking pot-shots at U.S. reconnaissance planes in no-fly zones, and warning us that we would face WMD if we chose to invade again. This was public knowledge.

So, Saddam was ASKING for what he got, and we finally gave it to him, in spades, after 10 years of the international community failing to enforce the U.N. resolutions. In the long 17 months PRIOR to the Iraq invasion of 2003, the U.S. Congress expressed overwhelming bipartisan support for the action, with principal congressmen (and women) arguing long and hard in favor of taking Saddam down, because he posed a threat to the international community and because of Iraq's links to known terrorist groups. These claims were not based solely on the word of the White House, but based upon intelligence gathered at the request of congressional members, who spoke with authority on the subject.

As for the "missing WMD" that conspiracy theorists love to cite, Coalition forces have, in fact, recovered over 700 weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, although the great bulk of Hussein's WMD were destroyed after the first Gulf War, and more of them spirited away to Syria, most likely. Still, 700 WMD can cause a lot of MD.

In any event, there is no evidence that the United States and Coalition forces perpetrated an "illegal" invasion of Iraq, based on hysterical rumors that sprang out of 9/11. Rather, we were right there in Afghanistan, we had the military presence, and we chose to shut down another known threat to the international community (Saddam Hussein) while we were in the neighborhood — albeit 17 months after the invasion of Afghanistan, and 10 years later than we should have.

5.) That 9/11 was engineered to incite American outrage, thus securing a right-wing conservative war-mongering stranglehold on American government for years to come.

Yeah? How's that working out? If 9/11 was designed by a public relations agency for the GOP, then it failed miserably within a few weeks after the event. I've seen toilet paper marketing campaigns that lasted YEARS longer. Thus far, the present administration and Congress have demonstrated NO right-wing conservative tendencies, which is a major disappointment for a great many of the people who placed them in power. If anything, our stuttering, stumbling, oh-so-moderate policy regarding the so-called War on Terror has prolonged conflicts in all the wrong places and worn thin our conviction, morale, and patience. Which would lead me to believe that it's not a conservative conspiracy at all — just the opposite.

— Doc Velocity

I shall come back with a complete post.
.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

I have not had much to add to the 911 Threads, so I have just been reading them. This contest is great, and the same questions are brought up where I believe most have been answered.

Although most think I am a "debunker", I do believe there is a conspiracy. Most of my questions surround the 911 Commision Report, and how the Bush administration delt with it. These are in order of the date.

#5 January 24, 2002: Cheney and Bush Pressure Senator to Avoid 9/11 Inquiry
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D)claims that on this day, Vice President Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be made. President Bush repeated the request on January 28, and Daschle is repeatedly pressured thereafter. Newsweek summarizes one of the conversations:

“Bush administration officials might say they’re too busy running the war on terrorism to show up. Press the issue ... and you risk being accused of interfering with the mission.”

Newsweek, 2/4/2002

#4 May 23, 2002: Bush Opposes Special Inquiry into Terrorism Warnings

President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special, independent commission to probe how the government dealt with terrorism warnings before 9/11.

CBS News, 5/23/2002

#3 November 27, 2002: Kissinger Named Chairman of New 9/11 Commission / Thenecember 13, 2002: Kissinger Resigns from New 9/11 Commission.

This I thought was very suspicious from the start. Kissinger has been known throughout his political life as someone that keeps secrets from the American public.

“Documents recently released by the CIA, strengthen previously-held suspicions that Kissinger was actively involved in the establishment of Operation Condor, a covert plan involving six Latin American countries including Chile, to assassinate thousands of political opponents.” He is also famous for an “obsession with secrecy.”

[BBC, 4/26/2002]

“Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed.”

New York Times, 11/29/2002
His Resignation
On December 11th,2002, the Bush administration argued that Kissinger did no have to disclose his private business clients. New York Times, 12/12/2002 However, the Congressional Research Service insists that he does, and Kissinger quits rather than reveal his clients. MSNBC, 12/13/2002; Seattle Times, 12/14/2002
It is reported that Kissinger is a consultant for Unocal, the oil corporation, and was involved in plans to build pipelines through Afghanistan. Washington Post, 10/5/1998; Salon, 12/3/2002
Kissinger claims he did no current work for any oil companies or Mideast clients, but several corporations with heavy investments in Saudi Arabia, such as ABB Group, a Swiss-Swedish engineering firm, and Boeing Corp., pay him consulting fees of at least $250,000 a year. A Boeing spokesman said its “long-standing” relationship with Kissinger involved advice on deals in East Asia, not Saudi Arabia. Boeing sold $7.2 billion worth of aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1995. Newsweek, 12/15/2002

#2 April 29, 2004: Bush and Cheney Privately Meet with 9/11 Commission; Decline to Provide Testimony Under Oath and Bush Declines to answer questions without Cheney present.

The 911 commission allows Bush and Cheney to appear together, in private, and not under oath. The testimony is not allowed to be recorded. Commissioners can take notes, but the notes are censored by the White House. Knight Ridder, 3/31/2004; Newsweek, 4/2/2004; New York Times, 4/3/2004.
The commission drew most of their questions from a list submitted to the White House before the interview, but few details about the questions or the answers given are available. Washington Post, 4/29/2004
When Bush was asked by the media prior to the questioning WHY he was being questioned WITH Cheney, he tried to side step it and responded with "They want to ask us questions...."

#1 January 27, 2003: 9/11 Commission Starts Off with Little Funding
The commission has $3 million and only a year and a half to explore the causes of the attacks. By comparison, a 1996 federal commission to study legalized gambling was given two years and $5 million. In addition, The Space shuttle Columbia tragedy was given a 50 million dollar investigation budget within two MONTHS of that accident. ( 7 lives compared to 3000)Associated Press, 1/27/2003 Two months later the Bush administration grudgingly increases the funding to $12 million total. Philip Zelikow, the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and formerly in the National Security Council during George H. W. Bush’s administration, is also appointed executive director of the commission. Associated Press, 1/27/2003 Zelikow cowrote a book with National Security Adviser Rice and was also, in 2002, responsible for completely rewriting President Bush’s national security strategy. [9/11 Commission, 3/2003; Mann, 2004, pp. 316-317] A few days later, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton says, “The focus of the commission will be on the future. We want to make recommendations that will make the American people more secure. ... We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility.” United Press International, 2/6/2003

All of what I have listed here, although not "sexy" like thermate talk, holograms, missing planes, controlled demolition, ect, however posesses facts. I could have listed the 911 Commision as only 1 item, but i felt that listing specific facts do point to some sort of a cover up from the Bush Administration. At a minimum, Bush made MAJOR mistakes during his short time in the White House. CAn it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was intentional? I don't think so. Though it CAN be proven that Bush DID cover up the mistakes he and his administration made.

I think the best way to get other people interested isn't to come right out and say "The government did it and heres why..." That is the best way to get them to ignore you.

You must also leave the president out of it , or it looks like "jealous politics".

The best way to get them interested is to raise questions about the events of that day that have real problems in the official story.


1. Why, immediately after the attacks on 9-11, when EVERY person in the country except military fighters were forbidden from flying, was the Bin-Laden family allowed to board a plane and leave the country with absolutley ZERO questioning?

2. Why does the crash-site of Flight 93 look different than every other plane crash in the history of mankind?

3. Put options. A put option is an option to sell a stock at a certain price in the future. If a stock is worth 20 dollars today, and I say in 4 days I'll sell it for 15 dollars,you think its a good deal and sign a contract agreeing to buy. The only way I can make money is if the stock price falls dramatically. Put options on the affected airlines increased by 20 TIMES in the 3 days before the attacks on the Trade Center. The investigation was halted by the government. Why?

4. With the dozens of videos that are known to exist, why has the government only released grainy, mislabeled and unconvincing video of the pentagon attack. How did the FBI arrive at all the cameras that captured the attack within minutes of it happening? Why did they tell some witnesses not to talk about what they had seen?

5. Project Northwoods. While not an exact blueprint for the attack, the documents prove that certain groups in the government are willing to kill Americans and fake terrorist attacks to accomplish their goals.

If you can get them interested in these points than they will see the rest with their own research. You can't throw things that are to 'extreme' at them right off the bat or they will get uninterested fast. If you tell a Christian right off the bat that God is fake and the church is a scam, they will ignore you. If you ask them why the "Good Reverend" drives around in a BMW and lives in a 500,000 dollar home, they'll see for themselves.
(Sorry Christians, I just used you as an example)


I did not provide links because you asked for something to talk about in an elevator type situation for about 90 seconds. These are the types of talking points that peaks interest and encourages people to look things up for themselves. You can not point to a link in an elevator or on a construction worksite, etc.




[edit on 13-2-2007 by Tiloke]

1- If you look at all the footages (where the planes hit the towers), you'll see a flash coming from the tower, right before it hits. And if you look under the plane, there is something on the fuselage. Like a rocket pod (or something similar). See for yourself, zoom in and watch it frame for frame. All angles show a flash coming from the building.

2- How can boeing 757 destroy 9ft/3m of Steel reinforced concrete (keep in mind there are 3 outer rings, each has 3ft/1,5m of SRC). It is made to withstand a big bomb (like a conventional bunker buster). Also the hole is too small for a boeing 757, and with its fuel-load, there should've been a fire that would've lasted for days. Yet there is no major fire damage. If you look closely, nothing that big slammed into the building, because you would've seen the damage the wings made. The roof (where it was hit) collapsed a while after impact (the footage showing the collapse)... where it should've collapsed or pushed upwards (leading to a collapse directly afterwards), depends on the angle of approach the boeing had, and at what angle the boeing was banking at (if it was banking at all). And there was no recognizable wreckage that came from a boeing 757.

3- Why did they decide to destroy WTC building 7, hours before the towers even collapsed? For a demolition to take place, it takes weeks of planning (studying the structural integrity, planting charges, etc.). And the streets should be cleared too (indicating there's a demolotion taking place).

4- Why was there only no cameras on at one of the most protected buildings in the US (the pentagon)? And why did the FBI/CIA confiscate video's from the gas station that was situated nearby?

5- Why did the firefighters hear explosions (in a demolition fashion) coming from the building (one of the towers)? If they lied... Why did they lie about it? If they lied about it, their reputation would be six-feet under (and I think they would know that, if they lied).

This one is to think about (and off the list)... how can magazines publish the 9/11 incident on the same day? And how can books be released so quickly?

unfortunately no links.

1) When the 9/11 story broke on the news, early reports of an alleged Cessna accident were intentionally downplayed to buy time as the NYSE was raped.

2) NORAD's inability to identify and stop the 'attacks'.

3) The Secret Service not securing the President and Air Force One immediately per standard operating procedures.

4) F.E.M.A. arriving in NYC a day early.

5) The lack of a thorough investigation... (i.e. the steel was wisked away from ground zero and shipped overseas).

1) Silverman's insurance deal, Bush's relative involved with Tower security, and the power-down the weekend before the event.

2) The quick removal of the forensic evidence--the steel!

3) Plastic knives and paper cutters?

4) Cheney's morning of 9/11 "war games", and N.O.R.A.D.

5) The Administration's reluctance to investigate, or their outright refusal to testify finally at the 911 Commission Hearings; at which too many witnesses were not allowed to testify, nor were their depositions taken.

1) it was the goverment did it (reasons to go to war)
2) it was the Israelis (gives them more leaway)
3) it was neo nazis working together to get east and west into conflict)
4) it was the KGB (russions) pissed that they lost most of their proxy states
5) it was the new world order


i win so when do i get the 250k (cheaqe would do)

1.George

2.Bush

3.Hates

4.Black

5.People



DID I WIN?

These are not my beliefs, but 5 of my theories are:

1) The planes were never hijacked; the "regular" American pilots formed a suicidal/murderous cabal because of psychiatric problems and they could have had links to a secret part of the U.S. government, al-qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, or other parts of the world.

2) The video of planes crashing were made-up; no planes crashed and there were no deaths on 9/11: the twin towers were partly or wholly detonated to reorganize systems and boost the economy.

3) U.S.A. military pilots flew the 4 aircraft that crashed and did so to blame the middle east for the event in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and prevent nuclear war.

4) Russia threatened nuclear war with the U.S.A. if the U.S.A. did not at least slightly self-destruct.

5) George Walker Bush implemented one of many plans to defend a war in the Middle East in order to deter the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.



[edit on 14-2-2007 by GreatTech]