9-11

[JennyB]

Re: Zionists planned 9-11. Why would they? The blame certainly didn't fall on Palestine, for example, and if 'they' could orchestrate something of that magnitude they certainly could get the blame cover up part right.

Exactly. You and I (and Hookworm) may have clashed on "conspiracy theories" before, but that cuts right to the heart of the matter. There's no benefit in it for Israel. None.


The closest thing you'll get to a "Wolter's Konspiracy Korner":

My personal belief about 9/11 - Al Qaeda was behind it, US intelligence agencies had enough raw data to at least make educated guesses about the operation, maybe even prevent it, but failed to. I think this failure was largely due to ideological blinders in most of the policy-makers of this administrators, who were far better equipped to speculate about Cold War scenarios than put the energy into really thinking about Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism. And I think there is some form of cover-up of just how inept our national security advisors were in that regard.

I also think that the US government knew good and damn well that there were no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda as well, and the whole dissembling about what we knew and what we didn't about Saddam is in itself an obfuscation of the naked truth that this entire war was cynically designed from the get go. I don't think the US gov't planned 9/11 in any way, but I think they had the Iraq war planned out long ago and took advantage of the situation to change the narrative and rally the populace behind it.

This is exactly how I feel and you articulated it far better than I.

[101Walterton]

Caught the end of a programme last night on TV about a conspiracy theory surrounding Tower 7 ? I think it was. It collapsed after the twin towers officially due to fire but conspiracy theorists believethe government brought it down. Saw lots of experts claiming it could not collapse the way it did due to fire etc etc BUT I missed the bit which (I presume) explained why the government would want to blow up a tower block ??? anyone know about this.

[Flex]

Caught the end of a programme last night on TV about a conspiracy theory surrounding Tower 7 ? I think it was. It collapsed after the twin towers officially due to fire but conspiracy theorists believethe government brought it down. Saw lots of experts claiming it could not collapse the way it did due to fire etc etc BUT I missed the bit which (I presume) explained why the government would want to blow up a tower block ??? anyone know about this.

Pretty extensively debunked theory, check it out: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[101Walterton]

Caught the end of a programme last night on TV about a conspiracy theory surrounding Tower 7 ? I think it was. It collapsed after the twin towers officially due to fire but conspiracy theorists believethe government brought it down. Saw lots of experts claiming it could not collapse the way it did due to fire etc etc BUT I missed the bit which (I presume) explained why the government would want to blow up a tower block ??? anyone know about this.

Pretty extensively debunked theory, check it out: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Thanks for that, I dont believe in conspiracies but do you know the why part (without mne having to read through it all :) ?

[Dr. Medulla]

Caught the end of a programme last night on TV about a conspiracy theory surrounding Tower 7 ? I think it was. It collapsed after the twin towers officially due to fire but conspiracy theorists believethe government brought it down. Saw lots of experts claiming it could not collapse the way it did due to fire etc etc BUT I missed the bit which (I presume) explained why the government would want to blow up a tower block ??? anyone know about this.

Pretty extensively debunked theory, check it out: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Thanks for that, I dont believe in conspiracies but do you know the why part (without mne having to read through it all :) ?

Well, there are conspiracies in the world. The trick is figuring out which ones have merit and which don't. JFK's assassination as a conspiracy has considerable merit; climate change as a conspiracy for a scientist-led one world government does not.

[101Walterton]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

Hang on I'll put it another way, what reason do they have as to WHY the governement would blow up the building.

[Dr. Medulla]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

The usual stuff I hear was to start a war against Muslims to defend Israel and/or to get Arab oil. There's also some crap about stealing gold from vaults underneath the towers.

[101Walterton]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

The usual stuff I hear was to start a war against Muslims to defend Israel and/or to get Arab oil. There's also some crap about stealing gold from vaults underneath the towers.

But the twin towers had just been hit by two jumbo jets why did they need athird ???

[Dr. Medulla]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

The usual stuff I hear was to start a war against Muslims to defend Israel and/or to get Arab oil. There's also some crap about stealing gold from vaults underneath the towers.

But the twin towers had just been hit by two jumbo jets why did they need athird ???

That part I don't know off-hand. Perhaps that's one of the unfortunate screw-ups that gets the conspiracy crowd hot on the trail.

[101Walterton]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

The usual stuff I hear was to start a war against Muslims to defend Israel and/or to get Arab oil. There's also some crap about stealing gold from vaults underneath the towers.

But the twin towers had just been hit by two jumbo jets why did they need athird ???

That part I don't know off-hand. Perhaps that's one of the unfortunate screw-ups that gets the conspiracy crowd hot on the trail.

Surely the basis for starting any conspiracy theory is a reason for the action becuase without that what is the point.

[Dr. Medulla]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

The usual stuff I hear was to start a war against Muslims to defend Israel and/or to get Arab oil. There's also some crap about stealing gold from vaults underneath the towers.

But the twin towers had just been hit by two jumbo jets why did they need athird ???

That part I don't know off-hand. Perhaps that's one of the unfortunate screw-ups that gets the conspiracy crowd hot on the trail.

Surely the basis for starting any conspiracy theory is a reason for the action becuase without that what is the point.

The original premise is always that (a) nothing is ever as it seems; (b) the official explanation is always a lie; and (c) the government is behind it. Go from there and plug in additional actors as you need.

[dpwolf]

I meant WHY do the conspiracy theorists claim the government blew up the building ? for what reason ???

It had CIA and FBI offices, and an OEM (Office of Emergency Management) bunker, so was basically an emergency command center for NYC. The theory goes that this command center was used to plan the destruction of the entire WTC complex; Tower 7 was thus destroyed in order to cover up the planning as well as to delay/confuse the response. It also had the same landlord, so the same insurance gain suspicion. I think.

Surely the basis for starting any conspiracy theory is a reason for the action because without that what is the point.

The original premise is always that (a) nothing is ever as it seems; (b) the official explanation is always a lie; and (c) the government is behind it. Go from there and plug in additional actors as you need.

101 you're correct the basis is (or at least should be) a reason, a motive. So when the official explanation is lacking a 'conspiracy theorist' (as they are called by 'non-conspiracy theorists') tries to figure out who had reasons/motives, who actually benefited, and who had the ability to pull it off. Saying you are or are not a 'conspiracy theorist' is horse shit. It's not black and white, its grey. If you think it's a yes or no you're missing the point (and not thinking on your own). That's the biggest bugger of the topic: every conspiracy theory is dismissed by the mainstream as quickly as any other, despite their independent validity. Anything other than the official version is so quickly dismissed that one begins to wonder whether that may actually be part of some game, some grander cover up. But leaving that aside, in basic terms if something is fishy, it perhaps needs further thought and investigation, and the government may not always be telling the whole truth. But that's it. Dr. Medulla's abc's above are as silly as believing (a) everything is always what it seems; (b) the government's explanation is always complete and correct; and (c) the government would never lie, deceive or intentionally hurt its populace. (Nothing personal Dr.)

[Dr. Medulla]

Dr. Medulla's abc's above are as silly as believing (a) everything is always what it seems; (b) the government's explanation is always complete and correct; and (c) the government would never lie, deceive or intentionally hurt its populace. (Nothing personal Dr.)

No offense taken—we know where we stand on these things. :D But I think you misread my intent. I'm not suggesting that there are never any conspiracies or that governments don't lie or mislead. 101 was asking the basis for conspiracy theories and I offered up what I think are essential ingredients to any conspiracy theory. This applies to those theories I think have merit and those I think are poorly thought out. Are there conspiracy theories where the govt has nothing to do with the affair, everything is at seems, and the official explanation is true?

[dpwolf]

Let's take the example of the government's manufacture of evidence linking Iraq to 9-11, or failing that as a true WMD threat, in order to justify starting (or finishing) a war against Iraq. The U.S. government denies manufacturing evidence and still pretty much sticks to its 'official explanation' but everyone pretty much knows its total crap. The UN didn't find any WMD, for example, but the U.S. didn't care and started a war on that basis anyhow, after giving up on a 9-11 connection. With respect to the manufactured evidence, I guess there is one clan that now says: Wow we caught them, naughty government. It's too bad we don't know exactly who planned, knew or covered it up. But there's another clan that says: Okay, so why should we believe other stuff the government says that doesn't make sense? What about alternate versions? What else have we been lied to about? Or take JFK's assassination. Many don't believe the official version of events - Oswald shooting a magic bullet - but at the same time dismiss all alternate explanations as stupid conspiracy theories. Maybe none of them are good enough or whatever but the real question is this: what's the difference between not believing the official version and being a conspiracy theorist? Should be nothing, but the term conspiracy theorist has such a bad connotation.

(I for one throw out for consideration the most outlandish conspiracy theories from time to time as a counterbalance to this, and also for the sake of humor.)

[Dr. Medulla]

Let's take the example of the government's manufacture of evidence linking Iraq to 9-11, or failing that as a true WMD threat, in order to justify starting (or finishing) a war against Iraq. The U.S. government denies manufacturing evidence and still pretty much sticks to its 'official explanation' but everyone pretty much knows its total crap. The UN didn't find any WMD, for example, but the U.S. didn't care and started a war on that basis anyhow, after giving up on a 9-11 connection. With respect to the manufactured evidence, I guess there is one clan that now says: Wow we caught them, naughty government. It's too bad we don't know exactly who planned, knew or covered it up. But there's another clan that says: Okay, so why should we believe other stuff the government says that doesn't make sense? What about alternate versions? What else have we been lied to about? Or take JFK's assassination. Many don't believe the official version of events - Oswald shooting a magic bullet - but at the same time dismiss all alternate explanations as stupid conspiracy theories. Maybe none of them are good enough or whatever but the real question is this: what's the difference between not believing the official version and being a conspiracy theorist? Should be nothing, but the term conspiracy theorist has such a bad connotation.

This is when we might be getting into semantics. Nothing wrong with skepticism. Doubt is a valuable intellectual tool when applied as part of critical interrogation (as opposed to kneejerk doubt, which is as limiting as blind faith). Now, the problem I have with most conspiracy theorists is that they don't apply their skepticism equally. As I've said earlier in this thread, the same rigour that they apply to debunking official theories are rarely applied to their own. With these alternate explanations, any connection or motive, however slight or implied, is inflated to absolute certainty and denial of its validity is evidence that the doubter (of the alternate theory) is a moron or in cahoots with the conspirators. It's the lack of intellectual rigour in devising alternate theories (e.g., that Mossad would hide its name within the name on the van) that lose crucial points with me. It's a curious irony that those who are skeptical of official versions dislike others being skeptical of their own theories.

(I for one throw out for consideration the most outlandish conspiracy theories from time to time as a counterbalance to this, and also for the sake of humor.)

And it's appreciated, even/especially when you get me riled up.