9/11 Conspiracy

Miscellaneous History
101

I think it’s good that people here are able to discuss this topic with an open mind. The discussion seems to have shifted toward only controlled demolition theory. If we only talk about controlled demolition, we will never get anywhere because none of us are scientists or are really qualified to debate such issues.

There is however, a whole ton of evidence aside from the theory of controlled demolition that points to 9/11 being an inside job. People will attack 9/11 truthers by claiming that we don’t have any evidence, but I disagree and there is a mountain of evidence that the 9/11 truth movement has uncovered.

So I’ll summarize some of the strongest pieces of evidence aside from evidence that points to controlled demolition.

Since this is an economics forum… we can start by looking at the put options. There was an unpredicted number of put options against Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines, and several other companies that were affected by the attacks whose stocks ultimately fell.

The War Games. On 9/11, there were many war games which I believe ultimately crippled the defensive efforts of the untied states to intercept the planes. On 9/11, they were running command post exercises with the Russians, where the F16s that would normally be in the North East sector, were flown up to Alaska. So there were very few planes to guard the skies. There were no supposedly no planes at Andrews Air Force base which is normally responsible for protecting Washington D.C.
There were drills that simulated hijacked aircrafts. There were drills that day of planes crashing into buildings. So basically, the people in the U.S. military tried to intercept the planes, but they had very few F16s at their disposal and they couldn’t tell the difference between the real world hijackings and the drills. In some of these hijacking drills, they actually inserted false radar blips onto the screen. Bin Laden sure got lucky to plan his attack during the day all these drills were taking place. (the US government claims these drills actually sped up the response).

The Pentagon. There is no evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. There is no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. There are only a few pictures and videos which show plane parts at the Pentagon, and none of them suggest that a large 757 struck the pentagon. Go look for yourselves. Try and find any evidence that a 757 struck the pentagon. There is simply very little evidence to support this.

Also, the Pentagon was stuck in the only wedge that was specifically reinforced to withstand an attack. The section of the Pentagon that was hit contained many accountants, bookkeepers, and finical information. On Sept. 10th, 2001, Rusmfled announced that they couldn’t track $2.3 trillion in transactions… then Bin Laden happen to attack the one section of the Pentagon that would destroy all these financial records and kill a bunch of accountants who may have been able to track down where the money went.

But think about this, the first tower was hit at 8:46, the second at 9:03. The Pentagon was struck at 9:37. I know the government is incompetent and all, but do you really think they couldn’t defend their military headquarters from a slow moving 767. It’s not like this was a fleet of Russian MIGs they were up against… we’re talking a slow moving commercial jet flying into some of the most restricted airspace in the world, hitting one of the most defended buildings in the world, over half an hour after everyone in the world knew the country was under attack.

The official story of the military’s response has been changed many times over the years… but the explanation that they give for not being able to intercept the plane that struck the pentagon was that the F16 fighters that were scrambled from Langley AFB was that they were chasing “Phantom AA 11”. Instead of protecting the Pentagon and White house, they were flying out over the ocean chasing an aircraft that did not exist. This is the official story of the 9/11 commission report which had to be fabricated after all the previous stories made even less sense.

The evidence against these hijackers is laughable. They claim to have found a passport from one of the hijackers on the streets of NYC. Do you really think a passport could have survived the plane impact and building collapse? That it just flew out of the guys pocket and landed on the streets below? The black boxes… those were destroyed… but the passport, somehow flies out of the guys pocket or bag and lands on the streets for the FBI to find.

The 9/11 commission report is full of contradictions. The testimony of Norman Mineta directly contradicts the final report, yet no explanation for these contradictions has ever been given (even popular mechanics stays away from this one). The book written by Richard Clarke also directly contradicts the 9/11 commission report.

Now, I don’t want to go into Flight 93 for long, but most non-9/11 truthers will even admit that this plane was shot down. Just look at the pictures of the crash site and you will see no evidence of an airplane. Just look with your own two eyes.

There were many unusual evacuations and power downs in the twin towers in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11.

If you think about the actions of the secret service that day. Bush was allowed to stay in a classroom full of kids while the attacks were taking place. Bush’s location was public knowledge that day and there was no reason to think that he couldn’t have been a target. They couldn’t protect the damn Pentagon, so they certainly wouldn’t have been able to prevent them crashing one of the planes into a school. He was giving a live televised speech after the second plane hit the towers, and minutes before the Pentagon was struck. There was an airport nearby, and the US Military still had no idea how many planes were hijacked and they were in no position to shoot them down. Given this information, the secret service would have taken the President out of the school, and taken him to a safe location. The reason they didn’t have to do this was because they knew he wasn’t in any danger. I still think that the secret service are good at their jobs and would have protected to President if it truly was a surprise attack.

In summary… there is a mountain of evidence, strange coincidences and unanswered questions that suggest that this had to have been an inside job. The notion that these attacks were carried out by 19 guys with box cutters is quite frankly ridiculous. I’ve spent hundreds, or maybe even thousands of hours looking into a lot of this stuff… so I guarantee you that there is nothing that anyone could say to convince me otherwise. It’s like a Keynesian economist trying to convince you that inflation is caused by economic growth, rather than an increase in the money supply. I’ve had debates with friends from high school who have now gone onto get fancy business or economics degrees, and they will argue with me that growth causes inflation and obviously there was nothing they could say to make me convinced of something I know with certainty to be false. I understand the point of view of blowback and government incompetence. I certainly agree that blowback exists. I agree that the government is inherently incompetent. However, after spending the time to look at the information, it is simply impossible to believe the official story.

102

Ah, see, that’s the tricksy part. I haven’t signed on one way or another, but they know as well as all of you who think you’re so clever do that they’d never be able to keep this under wraps. So, how do you have something leak and yet still keep people ignorant? You leak it to the right people. Established kooks. Alien abductees. Neo-Nazis. Militia members. People with no credibility to start with. Their coming out with the information first associates the information with them, and from there anyone else who brings the information forward. By making the initial leak through non-credible sources, you taint it forever. Only crazies believe that, right?

Just remember who burnt the Reichtag, and who they blamed for it. There is precedent. No one believed that until it was too late, either. As is generally acknowledged here, there were many that stood to gain by this. The military-industrial complex already make their money from death and mayhem.

103

It seems to be a fact that the BBC anounced the collapse of WTC7 before it was demolished, sorry, before it naturally came down. And then the BBC claimed that they ‘lost the tapes’ for that day. Thant sounds like a big leak, no ? So, there was indeed a conspiracy and they were not able to keep it secret. The fact that people like Edward just keep on refusing to call a spade a spade doesn’t mean that spades are not real.

104

The BBC was in it on it too??? Gosh, I bet you all the big wigs were; Putin, Blair, hell, even good ole Kim Jong Il!!! They’re laughing at the docile, ignorant sheep like myself for not questioning what really happened!!!

Hey ya know what, who’s to say that I’m not sent from the government to rid the internet of the evil “truthers”!! Bush sent me himself. Initially he had me transported in a flying device which hasn’t yet been revealed to the public. Then I was taken through secret hallways until I came to the grand meeting location where all of the plans are excecuted by none other than the master mind himself, D/ck Cheney!!! He instructed me that things were getting out of hand and that it was time to execute a plan which would effectively quiet the “truthers”!! I’m one of the thousands sent to debunk the outrageous 9/11 theories!!! Muhahahaha.

Haha, you’re all so clueless when it comes to the operation of governments. Especially a democracy like that of the United States.

105

Yes, ‘we’ are clueless. Thank you for enlightening us.

106

LOL! 9/11 is an amazing topic isn’t it.

107

Local stations in NYC also reported that the Deutschebank building collapsed, perhaps the national ones did as well. Almost seven years later it is still in the process of collapsing. So we had two reports of buildings collapsing. Neither were accurate, but one building collapsed anyway. But I understand how the media could have guessed things collapsed when they did not since there was a giant grey plume engulfing the area for hours after the twin towers collapsed…sometimes the plume would get bigger and sometimes it would get smaller. The media trucks were parked many blocks away on Canal Street in this parking lot kind of accross from the post office there and it varied as to who could get close and who could not. When something happens the media is “there” as in being in the area but getting to a place where reporting is accurate is impossible. Especially on that day. It was chaotic, it was not a chess game where someone is placed in one area and you can see it clearly and someone is placed in another and you can see it clearly and develope a strategy from there.

When I was walking home up Manhattan (from Chambers Street to 192nd street) we heard various untrue things. One was that car bombs were going off near Penn Station. Cops screamed this when they all ran past the group of walkers near Penn Station. We heard that there were more planes in the air. We heard there was a “cropduster” coming after the crowed of people walking (I knew that was non-sense…no way a plane could fly down Broadway). We heard on 1010 WINS that the White House was destroyed. We heard (accurately) that Manhattan was closed off except for the Bridge near 220th street but we heard that before it happend. I think a majority of what I heard that day was wrong.

108

edward_1313,

You seem to be a staunch supporter of the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory. A few questions for you:

What brought down Building 7? What did Silverstein mean when he said he gave the ok to ‘pull it’?

Is it important to you that the official version is true? Why?

Was Rothbard a kook for thinking the Kennedy assasination was a conspiracy?

109

The best theory I’ve read and thus believe, is that it came down as result of the debri damage caused by the two main towers. This, in combination with a fire, caused a vital column to collapse, leading to the collapse of the whole building.

I believe he meant ‘pull’ as in ‘pull’ the operation or as in, give up in trying to save what was still salvagable of wtc 7 (whether or not Silverstein had the absolute authority does not necessitate that the chief fireman would ignore his opinion; it could of been a sort simple couresty or formal approach or a sort of semi-rhetorical question).

For one thing ‘pull it’ is not generally used to execute CD. Further, Silverstein nor firemen would be familiar wih this jargon. Last, the audio file used to indicate that ‘pull it’ is used to to execute CD is taken out of context. The term ‘pull’ was used as in using hydrolic cables to ‘pull’ out the building not execute CD.

Whether it’s official or not is not important to me. The best explanation is important to me. The general scientific method has been used in a backward manner by most who adhere to 9/11 as inside job.

What’s really important to me is that Austrian economics and libertarianism expands and reaches many who are perhaps naturally inclined to its principles yet are not aware of those principles. Unscietific conspiracy theories like those of 9/11 and its association with libertarians and Austrian economics do much harm to the cause by branding them as unscientific, cult-like, paranoid, etc. I’m interested in attracting clear and logically thinking individuals. I think Austrian economics and libertarianims are the epitomy of such principles where as grand conspiracy theories I find to be the utter opposite.

I’ve never paid much attention to the subject. It’s seems to be a waste of time. I’m not saying that every grand conspiracy theory is invalid, but I’d say the overwhelming majority are (you have to understand that conspiracy theories are a natural tendency for human beings; after almost every great horrific event one springs up. This has been going on for ages. Humans have trouble comprehending events which seem larger than life so they often attribute them to something they perceive as mysteriously powerful; it’s an interesting subject; usually a good portion of a population harbors overly paranoid beliefs, it seems to be an evolutionary trait that has certain benefits to it).

Back to Rothbard though; I think he was an absolute genius, but that does not necessitate that he wasn’t capable of harboring somewhat paranoid beliefs at times. I know that, in general, he was against the notion of grand conspiracy theories. I simply don’t know anything about the Kennedy assasination so it’s not my place to say whether I think there’s any legitimacy to the conspiracy theories surrounding it.

Ah, and if your wondering where I got these crazy ideas of mine, just crazy aren’t they!!?? I got them from several places; debunking911.com is one of the best. And with regard to the ‘pull’ issue specifically, it’s http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

110

I don’t know what ‘paranoid’ means, except as pseudo-scientifc ‘psychological’ jargon. I think that totalitarian regimes are quite used to brand dissidents as mentally ill, no ?

111

It’s origin is Greek. And you’re right, this tactic has been used by totalitarian regimes. I do use discretion in applying the word, ya know. A dissident or heretic is by no means implicity paranoid. Paranoia is used to described the rationality and character of the beliefs harbored by its possessor. Almost all of the greatest discoveries in science were by thinkers who went against established thought; Darwin, Einstein, etc. Thinking outside of the box does not necessitate paranoia. But thinking in bizarre ways characterized by irrationality, excessive fear, i.e., the belief in elaborately thought out grand conspiracy theories misrecognizes the true reason for why we should worry about the state.

The growth of the state and the harm it does on to its people is not secretive nor planned out by a couple of evil men in a secret room. It results because of various individuals (politicians) desiring certains, and these ends are often attained by pandering to special interests which in turn, grow the state. There is no one grand conspiracy theory to grow the state; rather it is through many politicians pandering to many different special interest groups, not in coordination with each other. It is a sort of spontaneous order except that the order that results in this case is growth of the state.

112

edward_1313,

Firstly, although I disagree with much of what you wrote, I appreciate your in-depth reply. Just a few comments…

Whether it’s the Warren Commission’s magic bullet or a vital column, it seems there is always some foundational miracle required to undergird the official version. Even NIST admits that their best explanation has a ‘very low probability of occurence’. Funny how the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are the ones providing parsimonious explanations in these cases, quite the opposite of using the scientific method in a backward manner (not quite sure what that means, but I’ll concede it sounds good as an insult).

Sure about that one?

You’re begging the question. He would have known the term if he’d been involved in organizing the demolition.

Your link does a good job of providing many alternative, grammatically correct uses of the word pull, but in the end it still sounds like he’s referring CD.

I’ll agree with the first bit, and conditionally with the second. Cult-like, childish antics by 9/11 truthers discredit the position. That’s why intelligent, mature discussion of the facts is needed, especially by people who are capable of such thought and behaviour. Is this not a good place to find such people?

Wrong! If you allow rogue networks to get away with these things, you will always be dealing with them. You will never get rid of the fed. You will have newer, more fascistic versions of the Patriot Act.

People have difficulty accepting that those they trust have betrayed them.

113

Does that mean we get to see the minutes from the Jekyll Island meeting? And will there be congressional oversight of the fed?

114

A bullet following a curved trajectory, absent collisions or acting forces, is a “miracle.” In fact it’s impossible. But damaging a critical structural element is not a “miracle.” It’s perfectly possible. To carry it back to your Kennedy analogy, you’re saying that a “magic bullet” and “hitting a major artery” are equally fantastic occurrences. They’re not: one is impossible; the other happens all the time.

Fair enough. So far we’ve seen an awful lot of question begging, though. Above is a good example of that.

True enough. But I’ll wager you won’t find anyone on this forum who trusts the state. Whatever it is that makes some of us doubt the inside-job theory, it ain’t that we can’t believe our beloved state betrayed us. [:D]

–Len.

115

A nice analogy, but not entirely accurate. The mortician would not qualify the cause of death as ‘having only a low probability of occurence’. And the master corporal would not question the ability of the shooter to produce observed effect. Another analogy: the shooter blows off Kennedy’s large toe and he dies later of massive organ failure. Official theory is that the subsequent release of hormones overwhelmed his system. The autopsy also revealed the presence of toxins in his bloodstream (carrying the analogy forward, the presence of elements of thermite in dust from Ground Zero). Was he killed from the gunshot wound or was he poisoned?

If it was only WTC7 that was odd about that day, I would concede that the official version may be allowed to stand. But when you look at the other things, like the impossibly small hole in the side of the Pentagon, the fantastic aerial manoveur performed by a pilot who was judged incompetent to rent a Cessna, the reticence of the government to conduct a complete investigation, the use of high-level code words in threats to Airforce One, the absence of expected debris in Shanksville, the record number of military excercises on that day, the lack of air defense, the burying of warnings from FBI field agents, etc., then I just find it requires an incredible leap of faith to accept the official version.

The main defense I see here for the official version is that ‘the government is too incompetent to pull that sort of thing off’. And certainly Bush reinforces such an argument. But for starters, I don’t think Bush knew a thing ahead of time (look at his face whe he’s given the news in Florida- he looks like he’s just wet himself). The only thing required for this to be pulled off is a few operatives who can do things efficiently (and certainly these exist), enough high-level moles to prevent the patsies (Atta et al.) from being captured before they can take the blame, and to make sure that whatever government agencies could stand in the way are somehow disabled (e.g. through drills or ignoring agent warnings). This argument ad incompetence appeals to the people on this board, but I believe it’s too simplistic.

Beg to differ :slight_smile:

-KH

116

I think that going from “socialism can’t calculate” to “the gov’t can’t carry false flag operations without being found out” is simply a non sequitur. And besides, it can be argued that the gov’t was indeed found out.

117

Exactly. Witness WTC7. The more people are forced to acknowledge that it was professionally demolished, the more willing they are to envision scenarios where such a demolition was perfectly valid and understandable. Even though the official story on WT7 is either no story at all, or “we don’t know why it fell as it did”. The solution to a fire in a building is to put the fire out. Not demolish it. People will do back flips not to concede that the state, in collusion with private interests, is smart enough to pull the wool over their eyes. LMAO. To the state’s credit, i think they’re smart enough to recognize this and exploit this to maximum profit to themselves.

“How lucky for those in power that people don’t think.”

  • A.H.
118

You understood the analogy precisely as I meant it. Debris hitting a “vital column” of building 7 is perfectly analogous to a bullet hitting a “vital organ” in Kennedy. There’s nothing miraculous about it. When you mention it in the same breath as “magic bullets,” you’re equating something dead easy with something completely impossible.

You raise an important point, which goes back to how humans process strange occurrences. We like to attribute overwhelming things to causes divine, diabolical or conspiratorial. And we readily find omens and portents in common events. You feel that 9/11 was fraught with many unbelievable and suspicious circumstances. Sometimes that’s true, but we’re hard-wired to think that even when it isn’t, because running away from false ambushes has more survival value than walking into real ones.

The fallacy is our tendency to estimate ex post probability as if it were ex ante. You meet a girl in a New York subway, and discover that you both had a birthday party in the same London pub on the same night last year. You ask, “What are the odds of THAT?” and, starry eyed, she attributes it to “fate” and leaps into your bed. It’s true that the odds of that particular coincidence were astronomically low, but the odds of some sort of coincidence are incredibly high. And whichever coincidence you find, you’ll react the same way: asking, “What are the odds of THAT?” and unzipping your fly. It’s not surprising that we have moments like this. What’s surprising is how few we have. With a little practice, we could spot such coincidences with every girl we meet. Her grandfather’s dog came from the same Arkansas town as your grandfather’s dog. Something. Anything.

In genuine conspiracies or crimes, you’ll spot lots of curious circumstances, because where there’s fire, there’s smoke. The error we fall into is thinking that where there’s smoke, there’s fire–and that’s often false. Humans are expert at spotting smoke, which is why there’s a conspiracy theory around everything from the moon landing to the next election.

The bottom line is that you need to be looking at direct evidence of wrongdoing. You can’t just list a series of odd occurrences and conclude that something must be up.

–Len.

119

In the case of the Kennedy assasination, we have a fantastic effector (a bullet that is able to penetrate multiple layers of clothing, tissue and bone) producing a mundane result (entry and exit wounds in Kennedy and Connaly). In the case of WTC7, we have a mundane effector (falling debris) producing a fantastic effect (the free-fall collapse of a skyscraper). I don’t consider that dead easy and that was the point of my analogy casting the WTC7 events in terms of the Kennedy assasination:

The Warren Commission never said that the laws of physics were suspended, only that the odds of this happening were very low. Was it demonstrated empirically that this explanation was absolutely impossible? No, and I certainly wouldn’t volunteer for the experiment [:)] Can we empirically demonstrate that the vital column theory is correct? I’m not paying the grant to fund that set of experiments [:)] But what’s common to both of these is that they are extremely unlikely. Now you’re probably going to argue that the prior probability of falling debris causing the collapse is much higher, and I might grant that. But it’s still low enough to make me suspicious. And if it is true that knocking out a single column can produce the free-fall collapse of a building in its own footprint, then I am going to start my own controlled demolition firm that knocks out one column and undercuts these fools who go to the trouble of setting charges throughout [:)]

But this is a bit off-topic. The point I’m trying to make is that the official explanation for both events has to raise many questions. And I posit that someone who researched the two would be more likely to be sceptical of the official 9/11 story.

There must be a fallacy called Darwinian Psychologizing: ad hominem attack that attempts to discredit an argument by attributing unconscious, reproductively advantagous motivation to the interlocutor. Now that Freud is (finally!) out of vogue, at least you can’t attribute my motivation to suppressed sexuality or incestuous desires. But this Darwinian fitness thing can be used by either side. What if I attribute your motives to a hard-wired desire to maintain a positive image of reproductive in-groups in order to increase mating desires? Let’s not question each other’s motives.

This is an excellent description of the fallacy, but it doesn’t apply here. I’m not talking about coincidences, I’m talking about observed phenomena which don’t jive with the explanation given. I’m not saying that so and so was in Prague at the same time as so and so, therefore they were involved in a conspiracy. I’m saying that a pilot who was judged incompetent to rent a Cessna performing an incredible aerial manouevre to hit the Pentagon is not credible. A passenger jet fitting into the hole in the Pentagon is not credible. The free-fall collapse of a building due to debris hitting a vital column (in an area where the elements of thermite were detected) is not credible. Perhaps what you mean is, if you look at enough events, there will always be a few incidents that stand out as anomalous. But in your example, there are perhaps millions of combinations we can check to see whether we have something in common (birthday in the pub). But in the case of 9/11, there aren’t that many major events, and most of them have some element that defies credulity.

If we follow this logic, then most crimes should never be investigated. If I go to the police station and tell them that my missing neighbour was seen having a violent fight with her gardener on the day she went missing, then I will be told to come back when I have incontrovertible evidence. The point is to provide a strong prima facie case and then let the investigators do their thing. That’s what should be done here. The 9/11 truth movement has provided strong evidence that the official version is bogus. Are you saying this doesn’t need to be addressed until it can be proved what really happened? Well in that case, the investigation becomes redundant.

Are you satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report? My favorite bit is with regards to the put options where they say that they’ve investigated it and the people involved were not related to al Qaeda, therefore they had no connection to 9/11. Now that’s begging the question!

Do you believe bin Laden was behind the attack? I can’t decide which one did it: the dark, pudgy, right-handed one from the video, the one using Grecian on his beard, or the left-handed one who was visited by local CIA during his hospital visit in Dubai in July 2001 [:)] Joking aside, do you think these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda?

Enjoying the exchange, kind regards,

-KH

120

I expected that this would happen. However I was gambling on the chance that those in here that claim to be rational would come to their senses about the approach to finding out what really happened and would take the time to brush up on physics and how the scientific method works. That way, after having established what actually happened to the buildings, one could continue on with his praxeological endeavors with solid proof of how the buildings came down in the first place. Most just keep falling into the trap of speculation and mere argumentation. This accomplishes nothing BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!! (not screaming at you, BlackSheep lol)

Physics is a very different field than that of economics. However, this does not mean that those steeped in economic science cannot become learned in physics as well. Personally, I am no physicist by any stretch of the term. But if those that are truly interested in getting to the bottom of this mess would like to actually accomplish something, they are going to have to have to set the bickering aside and spend more time studying physics. In particular, they should be paying attention to tests of the various theories.