If you dont want to read all this and just want to debate, skip to the "TLDR version:" in bold. But please at least read that part before posting.
I have been believing 9/11 conspiracies for quite some time. I would say about a year after 9/11 i started asking questions up until about last week.
I always had doubts in my mind about the conspiracy theories, but in general i felt that many questions had been un-answered and in that regard i gave
my credence to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and what the "truthers" stood for.
However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million
times worse than even the "official" story.
First thing i would like to point out is, governments DO cover stuff up. There is no doubt about it. But i know i can rest assured that our government
did not commit 9/11.
A lot of people ask things like, "why is the media and the government so angry about us asking questions?"
Well, imagine your family just got murdered and the cops start interrogating you for the murder. Wouldn't you be mad? You know you didn't do it and
you know the cops are wasting time not looking for the killer. In all fairness, the fact the government officials get mad about people believing in
these conspiracy theories is actually more proof that they did not commit them.
People of this tyrannical nature are always proud of what they did. If our government is this diabolical, every 9/11 truther would suddenly
If you where a "poland truther" telling Germany that hitler bombed the reichstag, hitler would just kill you.
But im actually going off topic here. This is just a "historical comparison", since 9/11 truthers and other liberals love to use this so much.
Here are some major concerns i have with 9/11 conspiracy theories:
#1: The NORAD vs Pennsylvania conflict of interest.
So, according to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, NORAD was conducting Drills on 9/11 and got confused about what was going on. They are suppose to
intercept the airplanes hitting Towers 1 and 2 however failed to do so because of this. The government purposely confused NORAD so that the planes
would hit their intended target.
Pennsylvania shows no signs of debris or any wreckage. The Government fired a missile into an airplane to stop it from reaching its intended
Ok wait... stop right there...
So... the government purposely allowed 3 airplanes to strike their intended targets and then proceeded to cover up the fourth plane hitting possibly
DC by shooting it down?
Which one is it guys? Is NORAD standing down or is NORAD shooting down airplanes?
Or maybe... maybe its more plausible that NORAD couldnt intercept the first 3 airplanes in time but did intercept the 4th?
Should we hate the government for not telling us that they shot down an airplane that they Knew was 100% certain going to strike a target (considering
3 did before that one)? Decisions had to be made that day that no one should be responsible for. If the shoot down order was given for 1 plane we can
conclude that the government did NOT want airplanes hitting targets.
Or, maybe it just crashed into the ground so fast that it disintegrated? A plane falling straight down and exploding could potentially leave very
little debris. Either way, the pennsylvania "mystery" actually favors the "official story" more than the "truther story".
#2: Who in the hell orchestrated this thing? This isnt the burning of the reichstag. We are talking about rigging 3 buildings with explosives,
hijacking 4 airliners(along with convincing TSA agents to go along). Every member of the investigation. All government and military officials involved
in hijacking(or remote controlling) airplanes, rigging explosives, and detonating explosives.
The list goes on and on and on....
At some point there is going to be a guy with a digital voice recorder recording a smoking gun conversation with these people and taking it to court.
# like water-gate gets exposed yet 9/11 flies through with no problems aside from two college kids who want to make a movie and some crack-pot with a
microphone? Cmon now, give me a break. Ill believe a Roswell cover-up. You have a few villagers, a farmer, and one airforce base. But we are talking
hundreds if not thousands of people involved here. In all honesty, you wouldnt even need to create a false flag so intense. You could easily just bomb
some town, blame it on an "iraqi special suicide squad" or something, and go to war. You would not need something so elaborate and "diabolical" that
could easily be leaked and broken apart.
I am going to say this as a "common sensical" approach: If the government committed 9/11 without any obvious problems or major smoking gun leaks, then
this is beyond our "government". If you believe this, then you might as well believe we are being mind controlled by aliens. There is no other way
around it, because it is impossible to have so many people silent and without "obvious" evidence.
Im not talking about a scientist with a plastic bag of powder saying theres thermite in it. Im talking about an official with documents, recordings,
photos ANYTHIgn really that he/she would have had in connection with the crime.
How many people can go to bed at night knowing they where responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and not do something about it?
With something THIS big, its very hard to believe so many people would be silent. Its just impossible to even fathom, and this is the hardest part for
me to believe.
#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!
I'll be honest, world trade center 7 is the ONLY reason i even believed in the conspiracy theories in the first place. I was watching loose change and
thinking "bull# bull# bull# bull#" but because i am open minded(but skeptical) i kept watching. When it got to world trade center 7, i cringed. I had
to rewind and watch that over and over. Justify that the video wasnt making this up(because i had never heard of it before) and continue with my own
Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to
A perfect example of a "catastrophic" fire causing massive damage is the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake.
What a lot of people dont know is that 80% of the damage caused was not due to the Earthquake, but rather the "fires" that happened shortly after the
gas lines ruptured. The water system was shut down so firefighters couldn't put out the fire. You can see lots of burned buildings with just what look
like cardboard cut-outs left standing. Similar to the end result of the World Trade Center damage. Buildings in manhatten are actually built so they
collapse inward instead of outward, which is very smart and common in urban city environments. This isnt some crazy conspiracy, its the truth.
Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward. This doesnt indicate a controlled demolition, it simply indicates
that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.
here is a great video:
What many truthers wont show you is the "penthouse" collapse. Why in the world would the penthouse fall into the footprint of the building if its
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives. There is no evidence of any explosive
use whatsoever. The only thing "eerie" about the collapse is how symmetrical it "appears", but as mentioned the buildings where designed to collapse
in this manner. We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.
There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building. After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked
anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.
People use the "i heard explosions" eye witness accounts as "proof".
Well, if you watch eyewitness videos you will actually hear ZERO explosions. The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the
buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?
How loud would the explosions be?
Take a look:
Pretty freaking loud. It would be 100% obvious that it was a controlled demolition, yet you cant hear anything close to this.
And finally, #4:
Presentation. Only NOW has any of the "evidence" been presented thoroughly. But in the beginning, you had a giant "entertainment value" attached. Go
watch loose change with the loose connections, random finger pointing, eerie music. Its like watching "paranormal activity" for real ghost phenomena.
You just wont find it.
Lately some of the videos have been "trying" to use scientific evidence, but most of it has already been beaten to death.
There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition. Again, a lone scientist with a zip-lock bag of powder is not evidence.
Pictures of red steel being melted by construction workers is not evidence.
Before we start jumping to conclusions(such as i did myself), we need to take apart whats being fed to us(by both parties) and really figure out whats
1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone
structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having
30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully
believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to
investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.
2) The Pennsylvania crash was possibly a plane being shot down. When Terrorists hijack airplanes, it was believed that they would land and have a
ransom and/or demands. Nobody expected them to crash into buildings. This is why NORAD did not shoot down the first and second plane. Nobody knew
where the 3rd airliner was, so that plane did make it to its intended target. After 3 planes successfully made their intended targets, the fourth
plane was given the "go" to be shot down. The government is probably covering this up because they dont want the public to know they shot their own
airplane. Not just because it looks bad, but because that is how these terrorists actually use civilians. The idea that people fire at the terrorists
and kill civilians is exactly the image the terrorists want us to see. This is the government not giving our enemy more propaganda. It also might be
plausible that a bomb was on board that blew the airplane out of the sky or that it fell straight down and exploded entirely(the official story). If
there was a bomb on board, it would be very hard to know 100% and that is probably why it is not the official story, even if it might be a plausible
explanation for the lack of debris..
3) WTC 7 probably had its core exploded and/or had some kind of "leverage" dragged down to force the building to collapse inward. This is indicated by
the penthouse collapsing first. There is actually no evidence whatsoever that there where explosives. There is no video showing explosives being used
and no sound during the collapse of explosives going off. Witness testimony is not a valid way to look at this. Witnesses are great for a case, but
you need some evidence before you can go to trial.
At best, they evacuated the building, planted a bomb in the core column, and tugged it downward to fall into its own footprint. This was to ensure
other buildings in the area where not damaged and that if the building where to collapse later it would not cause any further loss of life.
Oh man, how evil and sinister of them to do that.
Again, there is no evidence of explosives being used whatsoever. If you believe the government "did it", then i want to ask you.. just how in the hell
did they do it?
Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.
And now i expect hoardes of truthers to flock, reading maybe the first two paragraphs, and shouting jews and inside job without any critical response
I wont repsond to any of that. If you have something debatable, i will see it.
If you have any evidence that contradicts what im talking about, i also want to see it. Remember, i was at truther. But for me, the truthers arguments
are actually a huge fallacy. So please just present some solid evidence that contradicts anything i have mentioned above and i will gladly listen.
edit on 20-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)