Where do my beliefs about 9/11 fit in?

I believe the "conspiracy" on 9-11 was a combination of deliberate inattention to the prospects of a terrorist attack followed by a fairly well organized campaign to push through whatever broad new powers Bush wanted in its immediate aftermath.

I've looked through some of the old threads on this board, but because I'm not sure of a convenient label for what I believe, or even which keywords to search, haven't been able to find anything that approximates my position.

When people talk about theories in which there are no planes hitting buildings or in which the collapse of the buildings was the result of controlled demolition the most I can do is tell them politely that I'm afraid we are on two different planets. Don't get me wrong, some of these ideas are pretty interesting, I just think they show a fundamental misunderstanding about how political conspiracies on this scale work.

There was no need for controlled demolition or theatrics involving planes and passenger lists. The conspiracy was this: The US knew a terrorist attack on US soil was imminent. By all accounts, we had picked up sufficient chatter to be fairly certain something was in the works. Rather than working to stop the attack, the administration chose to do nothing, thus making a success for the attack all but inevitable. All this time, the powerbrokers were putting together a list of policies they wanted to push through in the inevitable public support they would receive after the attack. I'll go so far as to concede that, because of bin Laden's CIA connections and George H W Bush's friendship with bin Laden's relatives, the administration may have had a good idea of about where and when the attack would occur. They may have given bin Laden a wink and a nudge nudge.

Immediately after the attack, I believe a coverup began. There are some strange things happening with flight plans and rescue missions. Cheney and Rumsfeld behave in some screwy ways, even by their standards. The investigation is botched horribly and deliberately from day 1. This isn't because there is physical evidence of controlled demolition, it's because there are paper trails indicatign who knew what when.

The administration did take a lesson from the Reichstag fire, only they were a little more subtle. They didn't set anything on fire, they just knew about when and where, and probably how, something was going to be set on fire and they looked the other way, too busy planning to capitalize on the attack once it had happened.

I apologize if this is a position that has already been discussed to death, like I said, I just didn't come across similar threads and I'm not sure exactly what I'd need to search to find them.

I believe you would be classed as an LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose).

reply to post by scientist


Yes, that sounds exactly right. A Google search turns up plenty of hits for "LIHOP". Thanks for the help.

There is so much questionable material out there, and producing 9-11 conspiracy theories has become such a cottage industry for some opportunists that it's sometimes wicked hard for me to navigate through the sources.

I agree, you would fall into the let it happen on purpose side of the issue.

You make some good points especially in terms of not covering up a controlled Demolition. There are some who believe that the Reichstag Fire was not set by the Germans, but took full advantage and used it as an opportunity to further their agenda.

I think planes hit. I have never believed that fire and jet fuel brought down the towers. In my mind, the CD of building 7 proves that explosives had to be set in advance in the towers, and if building 7 was wired, then there was time to do the towers as well. IMO building 7 is the key to the CD theory. I think it is fair to say that we can all agree that a CD would have had to be planned and the explosives set well in advance.

I think Flight 93 was shot down and I think a plane DID hit the Pentagon. The evidence that a plane may not have hit the Pentagon is clear, but I have always got the feeling that the government has focused more on this one event of that day. Why? Could it be that a plane did hit and one day later in the future they will finally release a video no one can argue with that will show a plane hitting? Then they will use that to dismiss all other theories and dismiss the whole 911 Truth movement.

In truth I do not think anyone will REALLY know what happened that day, all we can do is speculate and follow the evidence. In the end the only way we will know ALL the details wold be by confession, and I am sure not going to hold my breath waiting for one!~

I think planes hit. I have never believed that fire and jet fuel brought down the towers. In my mind, the CD of building 7 proves that explosives had to be set in advance in the towers, and if building 7 was wired, then there was time to do the towers as well. IMO building 7 is the key to the CD theory. I think it is fair to say that we can all agree that a CD would have had to be planned and the explosives set well in advance.

Yeah, actually I can envision a scenario in which we knew what the planes targets were going to be well in advance and added some explosives to help the planes do maximum damage. It isn't that I have any trouble thinking the administration is capable of sacrificing American lives in the pursuit of its agenda, nor do I imagine they'd have been squeamish about pulling the trigger themselves.

It's just that the paper trail left by an undertaking as massive as faking the hijackings, inventing passenger lists, faking cell phone calls from passengers onboard the planes and so on would have been overwhelming. Like von Braun said, "We can send a man to the moon, but the paperwork will kill you". Too many loose ends, too much chance for it to all unravel.

But as long as we are letting bin Laden organize an attack, and helping him along with little hints and winks, I don't have a hard time believing that CD could play an element in making sure the attacks don't just fizzle out.

Will read more about Building 7 in particular, thanks for the advice.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by peabody]