9/11 Conspiracy theorists...

I would like to start by saying that I have read the theories, the impossible speed theory, the implosion theory, etc, etc, etc...

Attrocities happen in the world on an almost daily basis, some are covered on news outlets, but unfortunately most are not. We live in a country where anything and everything passes as "news", so when a true tragedy on such a massive scale happens here (no, not Paris Hiltons dog running away) the media's on it like flies on...well, you know.

Just because such things are uncommon here in the states, it's easy for some people to blame it on a conspiracy. In my opinion though, it was a horrible event carried out by religous fanatics, not the president.

Many professionals disagree with the official 9/11 story, with more and more going public every day. Maybe you haven't done as much research as you think and instead are relying on the corporate MSM, as this person did:

Patriots Question 9/11

130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials question 9/11, including:

   510+ Engineers and Architects
   120+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
   260+ Professors Question 9/11
   210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
   150+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

A PERSONAL NOTE ABOUT THIS WEBSITE

I believed the official explanation of 9/11 for four and one-half years. During that time, I remember becoming angry at news stories about people who challenged that explanation. However, in the Spring of 2006, I saw the documentary, Loose Change, on the Internet. Although not an entirely objective documentary, it raised many serious and disturbing questions about the events of 9/11 that I had previously simply accepted without much critical thought.

And so I began a several month period of researching the events of 9/11. I found a great deal of material challenging the 9/11 Commission Report on websites like 911truth.org, Physics911.net, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and many others. I attended a lecture by David Ray Griffin. I learned much about what has become known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Much of the information and most of the rather limited media coverage about the 9/11 Truth Movement focuses on a handful of college professors, such as: David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, James Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, William Woodward, and A.K. Dewdney. In August 2006, I began searching for statements about 9/11 by senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans and government officials. Because of their experience in intelligence gathering, espionage, terrorism, and covert military operations, I felt their opinions about 9/11 would be valuable. I was surprised by the amount of their criticism of the official account of 9/11 that I found scattered around the Internet. I had learned of virtually none of this criticism through newspapers, television, or radio news sources.

I feel this criticism by experienced professionals is extremely important and that it has been seriously under-reported. This website was launched in September 2006 in an effort to provide an easily accessible reference collection of their public statements.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Thanks, but I still don't buy it. I know that most theorists think that the government destroyed the buildings to invade Iraq with the intentions of getting Saddam, but think about it, theres so many other ways they could have done it without killing so many innocent people.

I think this will help you find some truth in the Government Conspiracies of 911,
www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

These guys know what they are talking about and they are looking for the truth.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08

Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.

Defendants motion reads in part:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"

However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis. Full Article.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Thanks, but I still don't buy it. I know that most theorists think that the government destroyed the buildings to invade Iraq with the intentions of getting Saddam, but think about it, theres so many other ways they could have done it without killing so many innocent people.

Well poeple like me who try to find the truth have posted the evidence that the government had plenty of prior warnings but did nothing to stop the attacks.

But why would they need to identify the wreckage? We all know that planes DID hit the buildings. I think sometimes you have to just chalk it up to crazy people doing crazy things for their crazy beliefs.

Fine, you don't buy it. Just realize that if you're still making excuses for what Bush could've or should've done after all the WMD and other lies we've been told, you're probably viewing things from an emotional rather than an objective perspective.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Thanks, but I still don't buy it. I know that most theorists think that the government destroyed the buildings to invade Iraq with the intentions of getting Saddam, but think about it, theres so many other ways they could have done it without killing so many innocent people.

Well poeple like me who try to find the truth have posted the evidence that the government had plenty of prior warnings but did nothing to stop the attacks.

Sorry but with all the threats we probably get, it would be hard to react to every one of them.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Fine, you don't buy it. Just realize that if you're still making excuses for what Bush could've or should've done after all the WMD and other lies we've been told, you're probably viewing things from an emotional rather than an objective perspective.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, hell, I dont even like Bush. And i'm not viewing this from an emotional perspective either, I have my beliefs and you have yours.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by BloodRedSky]

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
But why would they need to identify the wreckage?

Becasue part of a avaition crime scene (as the 9/11 site are) there must be a proper crime scene investigation.

Part of that investigation is to identify the wreakage.

Hey!

How come you got replies and I couldn't?

I thought the article I posted had some interesting points and questions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Sorry but with all the threats we probably get, it would be hard to react to every one of them.

But we had some pretty reliable information about hijackings.

Why weren't the airports put on higher security?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Sorry but with all the threats we probably get, it would be hard to react to every one of them.

But we had some pretty reliable information about hijackings.

Why weren't the airports put on higher security?

I cant answer that one. No one can, you cant just call everything a conspiracy. Just because there was more that could have been done and wasnt only means that the president was neglectful and stupid, still doesnt add up to conspiracy.

I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying it was Bush or his administration personally. However, I'm not buying their version of events either. Something dark and ugly happened that day. And it isn't what we're being told it was. There's something more sinister and closer to home going on. The events which have transpired since have benefited nobody other than the American War Machine.

Originally posted by BloodRedSky

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Sorry but with all the threats we probably get, it would be hard to react to every one of them.

But we had some pretty reliable information about hijackings.

Why weren't the airports put on higher security?

I cant answer that one. No one can, you cant just call everything a conspiracy...

Sorry, you can call anything conspiracy if you'd like, but it doesnt mean # without any actual proof.

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
The events which have transpired since have benefited nobody other than the American War Machine.

Yes, war equals money for the government. But there still isnt any adequate answers to make me believe the government was up to this. Thats just my opinion, Im not attacking anyone, just expressing my views.

reply to post by BloodRedSky


The OS is actually a CT w/o proof also, like it or not. I know that doesent prove any CT but it still fits the criteria you mention.

The most interesting thing about this debate to me is that it is colored so much by what people WANT to believe.

People who are "anti-conspiracy" often seem to have made up their minds based on the fact that they consider it monstrous for the government to have done this. They simply don't want to believe its possible for the government to be so evil, so they choose not to.

On the other side, many "pro-conspiracy" people's response is equally as knee-jerk: they WANT to believe the government is evil for whatever reason, that the system is rotten to the core, and they WANT it to be a cover-up. So they choose to believe THAT. Maybe it fits in with their other NWO beliefs, maybe it makes them feel "on the ball" to know something secret, who knows.

Personally, I don't have an opinion. I'm not a structural engineer, I cannot understand the nuances of the various arguments, and I haven't done much research on it. I've read some stuff from both the pro- and the anti-conspiracy viewpoints that strikes me as convincing, but I ultimately have no way of evaluating the evidence.

I would encourage everyone on both sides to spend some time sincerely and deeply questioning their own motives for believing whatever it is they belive. Did you arrive at your belief through careful consideration of the evidence, or did you pick your belief first and then try to justify it with evidence later? Before you answer, spend some time turning this question over in your mind. It's not as easy to answer as it might seem. Do you have the strength of character to introspect in this way? The truth (within yourself) might suprise you.

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
I cant answer that one. No one can, you cant just call everything a conspiracy..

I am not calling anything a conspiracy, just looking for the truth.

Actually the only conspiracy is the official story since its based on a conspiracy.



[edit on 9-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by silent thunder
The most interesting thing about this debate to me is that it is colored so much by what people WANT to believe.

People who are "anti-conspiracy" often seem to have made up their minds based on the fact that they consider it monstrous for the government to have done this. They simply don't want to believe its possible for the government to be so evil, so they choose not to.

On the other side, many "pro-conspiracy" people's response is equally as knee-jerk: they WANT to believe the government is evil for whatever reason, that the system is rotten to the core, and they WANT it to be a cover-up. So they choose to believe THAT. Maybe it fits in with their other NWO beliefs, maybe it makes them feel "on the ball" to know something secret, who knows.

Personally, I don't have an opinion. I'm not a structural engineer, I cannot understand the nuances of the various arguments, and I haven't done much research on it. I've read some stuff from both the pro- and the anti-conspiracy viewpoints that strikes me as convincing, but I ultimately have no way of evaluating the evidence.

I would encourage everyone on both sides to spend some time sincerely and deeply questioning their own motives for believing whatever it is they belive. Did you arrive at your belief through careful consideration of the evidence, or did you pick your belief first and then try to justify it with evidence later? Before you answer, spend some time turning this question over in your mind. It's not as easy to answer as it might seem. Do you have the strength of character to introspect in this way? The truth (within yourself) might suprise you.

This would all be more credible to me if you all could agree on just one theory...But yes, I know our government is capable of horrendous acts, it just doesnt seem like the smartest route to start a war, there are so many other options than blowing down the Twin Towers.