More so than anywhere else in the world, American journalists and media outlets have an unprecedented ability to challenge their government. Interestingly enough none of these media outlets, particularly those who possess a historically anti-Bush slant, have opted to break the "facts" 9-11 conspiracy theorists claim prove the attack was an inside job. They won't print numbers, statistics or studies; and, too a large extent, won't even acknowledge the possibility that Bush's administration had any hand in the 9-11 attacks. It's seen as "too radical".
Why would news organizations, whose sole source of survival and revenue depend on breaking a bigger story than their competing publications, avoid the most profitable headline in the history of media? Why are the only sources for such conspiracy theory information found on the Internet? Is the United States government bribing this "indisputable" evidence out of the media? If so, why hasn't this information been on the front page of newspapers throughout Europe? Does the Bush administration's plot go deep enough to pay off even Canadian newspapers?
All of the above questions can be answered with the exact same response: The accusations have no merit. The facts are skewed and misrepresented. Assuming the facts provided by conspiracy theory websites were even 50% plausible, Nancy Pelosi would have already started impeachment hearings.
As hard as it is for people to believe, figures of power and authority are not always inclined towards corruption. It's possible that authority figures, in some cases, are truly concerned with providing what's in the best interest of those whom they're presiding over, and not trying to manipulate their position of power for self-interest at every turn.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
i know that this movement has scientific opinion. if only they would submit their information to peer-reviewed journals.
you do realize that the arab press has long talked about this theory? in fact, many writers cite this theory as fact.
I think the theory is interesting and on first blush it almost seems rational. Then you check out their web sites and listen to the people, it starts to fall apart. The only one who seems rational is the guy from Utah whose name escapes me at the moment.
Even still, with the MSM utterly silent about this discussion, 40% of the public believes that the government was behind 9/11 in some way. You'd think that, with that many people questioning the official conspiracy theory, SOMEBODY would give it some credence or, at the very least, the government would provide SOMETHING to lay the questions to rest. It doesn't seem to me that it's particularly healthy for society to have nearly 1/2 the population believing that their government was involved in the most egregious attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
The problems with the official conspiracy theory are plentiful, but one of the most disturbing aspects for me is that "it" isn't even the first theory brought forth. In the hours and days following 9/11, several "official" theories came forth, and as they were shot full of holes by the media and/or conflicting comments from other sources, it morphed into what is today accepted without question by 60% of the population. The fact is, had the media continued pointing out the obvious flaws of this official storyline, the story would still be morphing today, and would undoubtedly be quite different than the version that some have so willingly accepted. The main problem with the official conspiracy theory is that it simply has no merit. It cannot stand under scrutiny of close examination.
As hard as it is for some to realize, there have been times already when dark, sinister forces within the government have carried forth conspiracies in order to get what they wanted, namely war. There is virtually no evidence to suggest that 9/11 was any different, yet considerable evidence to suggest that it was.
Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of 9/11 theories is that, while there is only one "official" version, which is easily discounted, there are dozens of alternative theories, none of which have been completely proven, of course, but neither have they been completely disproven. And, the fact that any one of them can discount the official version makes all of them even more worthy of examination.
It's quite likely that we may never know definitively what really happened, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was something far beyond what we've been led to believe by our own government.
I don't know with absolute certainty that the buildings were imploded, but the evidence sure seems to suggest that they were, and the fact that the official version is wholly incredible makes one wonder.
But, given the massive number of unanswered questions around 9/11, one doesn't have to accept that the buildings were imploded, because there are hundreds more glaring questions left unanswered by the official verison, and any one of them indicates the possibility of it being an inside job to some degree.
The one book that really opened my eyes to other possibilities was David Ray Griffen's "The New Pearl Harbor." He doesn't simply examine one aspect of 9/11, but rather painstakingly looks at SEVERAL aspects, from several angles. He really encompasses the entire event, and pulls it all together, which is what one really has to do when examining it. It wasn't just a few buildings collapsing.
Btw, Nancy Pelosi has no subpeona power, cannot form committees, and has no control whatsoever over the judiciary committee of the house, where articles of impeachment would be drawn. Had she had control at any time over the past 5 years, you can rest assured that the articles would've been drawn long ago.
If these "authority figures" were not getting paid...and paid veeeerrryyy welll.....do you think they'd even bother being in a position of power?
It's all about the money. Being in power IS self-interest!
As far as 9/11 is concerned....I wholeheartedly agree with everything Clark said!!
I hate to break it to you...but the media's sole sourch of survival and revenue come from their sponsors.
Actually, there is considerable circumstantial evidence, along with hundreds of very disturbing questions.
"These aren't even conspiracy theories because YOU HAVE NO THEORY."
I don't claim any particular theory, especially not the official conspiracy theory. All I'm saying is that the official version is not credible.
"Your entire theory is that you don't trust the government and they were behind it."
And? Prove me wrong.
"All the specifics such as WHO did it (agencies, agents, etc), WHAT they did (did they impode the buildings?"
Who knows? A handful of members of the military industrial complex? What they did? Concocted a plan by which they could attack the US, blame a fringe terrorist group, and successfully launch a permanent war that would enable them to strip away freedoms and rights guaranteed in the constitution.
"Did they set charges?"
It certainly seems likely that somebody did. Steel framed high rise buildings don't collapse from fire. They never have, until 9/11, and they probably never will again.
"WHERE are these peole now"
You tell me. Where are the planes that supposedly crashed near Shanksville and into the Pentagon?
"(all amazingly silent, even though such an operations would have required HUNDREDS of operativess), "
Why would it require this many, and how long was it before the conspiracy of the Gulf of Tonkin was uncovered? Have you got proof that it would take "hundreds" of operatives to pull this off, and that there is no possible way that it could ever be kept quiet at all?
"WHEN did they plan this (how did Bush pull this off in only 9 months?), "
Who said Bush pulled it off, and who said it took only 9 months to plan?
"The only thing you even TRY to address is the WHY and that's because trying to address anything else would require you to advocate something and you know that the SECOND you do, you'll be ripped to shreds with the same rhetorical tools you use to sow doubt without a single shred of evidence to support it. "
Prove me wrong. Prove that the official conspiracy theory is right. You can't. The only thing that you've got is useless rhetoric, tossed about in a vain effort to diffuse the reality that you simply cannot prove anything, any more than I can. The ONLY thing that we DO know is that the official storyline fails to address literally hundreds of very disturbing, glaring questions.
The underlining premise to these government conspiracy theories is someone is in charge. They are brilliant and in control.
Clark,
The problem w/ your government conspiracy theory is your basic assumption. You are assuming that the US government is in charge pulling strings behind the scenes. Katrina taught us that the government is inept. You can raise all the questions you want, however your basic premise that government is brilliant and in charge of world events is flawed.
Whoever said that Bush was in charge?
"You're a bunch of f***ing idiots. believing in conspiracy theories just helps you come to terms with your own mental problems. "
Yet, you believe the most incredulous conspiracy theory of all, the one that your government told you.
"I'm not the one going against 'official' thinking, therefore I don't have to prove ANYTHING."
Yes, the burdon of proof is entirely on you. You're so utterly convinced that everything that the government has ever told you is true, I disagree. You prove to ME that you are correct. You cannot, of course, which is why you once again attempt to diffuse and divert.
"I'm not going to fall into the same rhetorical traps you set for everyone else. "
Which is why you fall into your own, I suppose.
RoadKing is correct.
The underlining premise to these government conspiracy theories is someone is in charge. They are brilliant and in control. "
That would be a first.
So, are you suggesting that your government has NEVER conspired to deceive you in any way, at any time?
"You are assuming that the US government is in charge pulling strings behind the scenes."
I don't believe I ever said anything about the "US Government."
"Katrina taught us that the government is inept. "
The US government that is run by Bush IS inept. You are correct.
"You can raise all the questions you want, however your basic premise that government is brilliant and in charge of world events is flawed. "
So, in other words, there has never been a moment in history where some level of this government has ever sought to deceive intentionally. Ok.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/where_the_hell_is_your_9_11_pr.html
http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/doubt_over_official_
version_911_widespread.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00087.htm
I'm not suggesting that anyone should swallow ANY theory at this time. In fact, I'm pleading with you to NOT swallow ANY theory at this time, INCLUDING the unverified, unsubstantiated, unbelievable official version. Question EVERYTHING. It really doesn't hurt a bit. Trust me. Ignorance really isn't bliss after all.
This question is now on SIX threads. When will you comment on your deception? "
Why do you insist upon doing this all the time? Are you a troll? I've told you before, if there's something from a previous thread that you feel I haven't responded to fully, contact me by email. I don't spend my entire life revisiting every single thread that I ever post on.
I have never seen you post this question previously. You asked me ONCE that I saw, where I found the Bingham quote. I replied that I googled for it. That's it. I googled it, C&P'd it, and let it go at that. If you have further issues with it, you can take it up with me directly through email, if you feel you must, or you can google it yourself, find out who published it, and take it up with them.
Prove that the information provided is false, please. That's all I'm asking. Somebody just step forward and PROVE that the information is false.
"Wow, Clark, way to generalize! How exactly do you know that I accept everything the government tells me? Cuz I really dislike this administration and pretty much everything it stands for.
So, in addition to completely avoiding advocating something, and thus being pinned down to a point that could be debated, you've not fallen back on the old tactic of shoving your opponent into a convenient little box. How original and how very much like the administration you love to hate.
You're rather adept at standard political smear tactics, Clark, but very short on actual logic. Do others actually accept this type of discourse as actual debate or can everyone see through your rather transparent tactics? "
Diverting yet again. Prove that there is absolutely no possible chance of any government involvement at any level. That's all I want. This really shouldn't be that difficult for those who're utterly convinced that the government version is entirely invincible, should it?
No kidding. That's kind of my whole point here. I'm glad you finally figured it out.
"But you wish to lump everyone who disagrees with you into one category and disregard them. That's called creating a 'strawman argument' and is another of the lazy rhetorical tools you use extensively. "
This is exactly what those who believe the official conspiracy theory have done to 40% of the population. We're "lunatics," "unhinged," "clowns," "idiots," "morons," etc., because we have found too many unanswered questions that demolish the official conspiracy theory. Because we cannot definitively prove our case beyond any shadow of doubt, we are given zero credence or consideration.
Yet, the exact same can be said of the other 60%. I have never seen any definitive proof to support YOUR theory either, yet you cling to it as if your life depended on it. Why? Who knows. In my world, when something doesn't add up, you begin to question and search for answers. In some people's worlds, when something doesn't add up, they mock and ridicule those who dare to question. So be it.
"Advocate something, Clark. Don't you find it tiring being defined only in opposition to another opinion? "
One might ask you the same question. Again, I'm trying to turn things around a bit, so that you, and others who think like you, can begin to question.
Seriously, although it takes a helluva lot more than anyone has been able to gather, to bring definitive closure to ANYTHING regarding 9/11, all it takes is a very minor, glancing observation to discount the official storyline. Yet, look how steadfastly people cling to it. It's as if by merely pointing out that there are serious, unanswered questions, I've declared myself the enemy, and I'm immediately attacked and villified by those who refuse to even examine information at hand.
If there is one thing that I'm truly advocating here, it is that we ALL begin to ask some serious questions about 9/11. There has NEVER been a real investigation into it. The 911 commission was never tasked with uncovering what had happened. Isn't it time we had a real, independent investigation to finally try to find some answers?
I'm glad that you've looked at it and don't buy it, although I would be intersted in seeing what proof led you to entirely buy the official version. I've looked at it and don't buy the official version. At least you've looked it, which is far more than most can say.
"I'm calling you on tactics that wouldn't stand up in a high school debate competition."
What have you offered that is so lofty and convincing? Nothing.
"You're using the same tactics that the Intelligent Design advocates use. Just because you poke holes in a theory does not discount it."
It depends on how many holes are poked, wouldn't you say? I'd say that, with hundreds of unanswered questions remaining after the official version, there are more than a few holes poked.
"You must REPLACE it with something before it can be discarded."
How about this then: SOMEBODY IS LYING. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS NONSENSE. Beyond that, nobody can prove anything at this point, except that a real investigation is in order.
"By the rules of logical inquiry, you operate with the explanation you have at hand until such time as something more probable presents itself."
The explanation at hand is ludicrous on its face. If someone told you that it was snowing outside, but you saw sunshine, would you just accept what they'd told you, or would you call it ridiculous, because it was obviously untrue?
" You've presented nothing and thus the 'official opinion', regardless of what you think of it, stands until you can offer an alternate explanation. "
You've provided nothing yourself. I guess we're even. The official version is incredulous, and you've provided nothing to prove otherwise.
Btw, the "alternate explanation" is that SOMEBODY at some very high level of government conspired to carry out the events of 9/11.
"Since there are no other examples of large planes striking buildings,"
Are you so sure about that? You might want to check your history. You might also make note that the WTC buildings were designed to withstand multiple hits by the largest commercial craft of the day.
"The first rule of scientific inquiry is never assume you can KNOW what will happen until you have tested it. "
There've been countless controlled demolitions conducted over the past decades, most of which look remarkably similar to WTCI, WTC2, and WTC7.
"You're falling into the trap of assuming that all intelligent people will agree with you if they have all the information."
You're falling into the trap of assuming that I need all people to agree with me. And, you're also falling into the trap of assuming that all intelligent people will agree with the official version, simply because you do.
NOBODY has "all the information," btw, which is why we're having this discussion at all.
"I've seen all you have to offer and it doesn't hold up."
Based upon what? Your opinion? That's pretty convincing.
"ANY alternate explanation is even more improbable and full of holes than the 'official' explanation. "
Sounds like a straw man to me.
Ridiculous! All I have to do is offer alternatives (according to your previous post), to what is obviously a completely flawed explanation. One question alone can smother the official version, and all it takes is that one lone question to render the official version false, which is what my point was. There are HUNDREDS of such questions, however, not just one. So, you if you can muster a way to spin out of one, you find yourself spinning headfirst into another. You wind up twisting yourself into a convoluted matrix, trying to spin away from the hundreds of glaring questions/omissions from the official storyline.
I'm glad that you've somehow found a way to accomplish this feat. I have not, and nothing that you or anyone else has said has swayed me one iota.
"How are you supporting this? You state there are mountains of circumstantial evidence. Where is it? You've not bothered to provide it so I've nothing to respond to."
I've provided a few hastily grabbed links, there are thousands more. Have at it. I thought you'd already reviewed this information?
"I'm not the one trying to change anyone's mind here. I'm not ARGUING anything except that you're using lazy, old rhetorical tools to look like your'e saying something when in fact all you're doing is speculating. "
I'm doing exactly what you and others who think like you are. Anyone who claims ANYTHING about 9/11 is purely speculating. I just happen to be refusing to believe the official speculation. No need to get all wadded up about that. It is what it is. You and I disagree.
"I'm not the one trying to change anyone's mind here."
And, you haven't.
"Maybe that's enough for you but if you want to be taken seriously, you'll follow the rules of logic. Until you do so, THERE'S NOTHING TO ARGUE WITH. "
The "rules of logic," such as, when one story is found to be unbelievable, you must adhere to it unless another story can be entirely proven beyond any doubt? That makes a lot of sense.
"You don't seem to understand that as the person who is trying to make a point, the burden of proof falls on you. "
You don't seem to understand that I'm saying the same thing to you. YOU are trying to make the point that the official version of 9/11 is the only truth, yet you have offered nothing to validate that claim. I don't have to prove anything, except that there are glaring questions about that official version that have been left unanswered. I've posted more than enough here to satisfy that.
"Since you're obviously going to dodge this responsibility, this is not a debate. "
Granted. I think we've already uncovered that neither of us believes what the other believes, yet neither one of us can substantiate definitively proven alternatives. Such is the nature of this topic, and why I say again that it is time for a new investigation.
"Like I've said, others may fall for these tactics but I will not."
Nor I.
"Put forth something and I will respond to it. But completely unsubstantiated speculation is impossible to refute and so I'm not going to get into a pointless exchange. "
Ditto.
We're going in circles here, don't you see that? I cannot definitively prove any particular alternative theory to be positively true, but neither can you. Based upon the information that I've seen that conflicts with the official storyline, I cannot bring myself to find that to have been proven to any degree, and in fact, have come to find parts of it to be completely incredulous, which leads me to believe that the entire official storyline is bogus.
If you can believe it, that's awesome. I can't.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm trying to convince YOU haven't made any argument here, as is always the case with those who favor the official version. I have produced NUMEROUS links to support my claims, yet you cannot even see them, let alone take the time to read through them. I'll try once again.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/where_the_hell_is_your_9_11_pr.html
http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/doubt_over_official_
version_911_widespread.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00087.htm
This is but a tiny handful that I grabbed completely randomly. There are literally thousands more available to you. Any one of them contains more than enough information to cast serious doubt on any number of aspects of the official version, which, as I pointed out, points the burden of proof back on that official storyline.
"WHAT information? "
Read.
"Never said you should. Just asking you to back up your OPINIONS with, you know, facts and stuff."
I wish you would do that as well. You can't, however. I've been trying to get this across to you. As much as you have supported the offical storyline here, you have failed to produce a single factual piece of information to substantiate your belief. Since this is the "official version," there should be no difficulty whatsoever in doing so, yet you cannot.
At the same time, there are literally hundreds of points, questions, and ommissions that counter portions of that official storyline. Can anyone definitively prove at this point that there was invisible government involvement? Of course not. But, neither can anyone definitively prove that there wasn't, and, considering how much is left unanswered, considering how frequently and blatantly this administration and our government in general has been known to lie, and considering that the government HAS conspired to deceive us in the past, it seems strange to me that anyone would automatically cast aside the possibility of another example of it.
If you're looking for me to list every single issue that I have with the official version, I'm not going to, because it's far too lengthy and complex to try to tie all together in a message board post. Read the Griffen book, if you truly want to see a shockingly complete timeline and cross-reference of events, commentaries, documentation, and conflicts. He has painstakingly compiled ALL of the disturbing aspects of 9/11, including the various versions of the "official" version, and how they are incongruent with available information.
So you are getting a little tired of people reflecting the very same groundless 'defamation', you project outwardly, right back at you?
I never suggested you were anything less than a hypocrite.
It had been my intention to leave religion out of this debate. But apparently everything is about religion with Charles. Is that your only strategy Charles, make every discussion about religion, so you can claim defamation and report to the Anti - Defamation League, anyone who dis - agrees with you?
Please don't submit another case to your 'Anti - Defamation League' regarding my growing dis - interest in your continual mis - direction and re - direction from civil discussion. I was under the impression they have more important groups and serious incidents to address.
I can't believe I am already hearing from them, let's all remain painfully sensitive to any defamation of Charles. While he flagrantly libels and defames the targets of his choice at his convenience. Let us not forget, he has yet to produce even one example of anyone saying, what he say's they have said, and he has had over a month, in at least one case.
Tell, that to the time - space continuum. Apply Occam's razor, and God must have made it, without a doubt that's the easiest answer. Why bother with the math of 'M - theory' or 'Quantum Mechanics', when you can just thump on Genesis, for your friends?
I certainly won't waste any energy defending the competence, or lack thereof, of the present administration.
However, the towers, and Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane, came down as a function of physics.
I would be interested in some 'easy explanations' regarding the demoliton of Building 7.
It doesn't get any easier than this:
Larry Silverstein, of Silverstein Propeties, is on tape, suggesting to 'pull it'. In all of their history, these (3) buildings never changed ownership until (6) months prior to 911, when Silverstein bought them.
And Silversteins's insurance coverage, from which he actually intended to benefit from twice, for what he considers two seperate terr0rist attacks, was finaliazed about (6) weeks prior. And only Silverstein's (3) buildings came down that day. Silverstein won the lottery that day when, some financial liabilities for the 'Port Authority' payed off in dividends from apparently multiple attacks.
The only laughable theory available to disprove is the 'official story'.
Even the '911 Commission Report' admits the only explanation has a very low probability of ever occuring. But you would have to research that to know. Big Media ceratinly isn't going to bring it to anyone's attention. But those are the facts.
Please suffer one more example. Someone was continually posting a so called debunking site to my articles. The site opens with this intellectual stating, 'I am not a scientist, but I questioned the official story, at first, until I realized straight down, into it's own footprint, was the only direction a building could fall'.
Well give this guy an honorary degree, because his discovered an unrecognized attribute of Newtonian physics, that an object can actually accelerate while falling through the path of most resistance.
Obviously the path had to be cleared, for each floor to fall anything approaching the acceleration of gravity, the speed at which Building 7 fell. The Twin Towers actually fell faster than free falling gravity. There is no other explanation than the floors were actually demolished in succession and weren't classically falling.
It is not my responsibility to conjecture who, or how, I am only trying to educate people of the truth that the official story can not withstand the slightest examination. But the majority of people are much more comfortable calling me names ...
Your mental capacities are really failing, I'm so sorry.
Charles, you brought up religion when you asked me (11) questions about jews originating from the 'Anti - Defamation League'
And in this thread you said,
And here, nearly a month before ...
Yo have never even implied which anonymous scholar supposedly associated to 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' may have said such things, or pointed us to a reference citation link to read the words for ourselves
You are probably the most dishonest debater I have ever had the displeasure to encounter, see you around ...
Now before you start falsely accusing me of being even remotely interested in what you have to say. May I remind you that a previous post and comment of mine is the basis for the current gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976817691.
I didn't want to acknowledge your thoroughly dishonest comments. Because I was afraid you might actually delete them. Once it occurs to you that even those, who would shove the blatant Faux News propaganda in their eyeballs, can only revel in your utter lack of sincerity.
Charles apparently feels no cognitive dissonance stating the patently false with complete insincerity. I only wonder how this factors in to his relationship with the 'ADL'?
Anyone can witness how unbelievable low you lower the bar of civil debate with:
youtube.com/watch?v=pxHbmqJ-U1Y
But while we are revisitng your only apparent interest, (.gov) sponsored disinformation.
Here's an abridged list of conspiracy's that could never have been kept secret:
And while were at it let's address one Kennedy managed to obstruct before he was assasinated by a 'magic' bullet:
Operation Northwoods
or for that matter (PNAC):
Project for the New American Century
Or are you willing to acknowledge the C.I.A.'s stranglehold on Big Media demonstrated by:
Operation Mockingbird
Why are you so averse to the truth? Do you really think all of your lies won't imprison you, as you pathologically surrender your reality to real truth seekers?
LoTek
truthfor911.gather.com
If you are still sincerely suggesting that your your following comment, posted as much as a month in advance of the evidence you cite in a least discrete (3) instances.
Then you are a blatant disinformationist shill, insinuating some misbegotten authority from the 'ADL'.
If your hypocrisy is wholly insincere and based on a lack of education, then you need to take responsibility and accountability for that, now.
Any way it is interpreted, you have done nothing but lie, since you have been here. And the following example is the height of willfully subverting even marginal ethics:
Your comments above are in now way subsatantiated by your cited referencve, 'Fox News Interview', from a couple of days ago. In fact you made the same comments, as I have shown more than a month ago. Yet, right here, right now, you still insist the show you heard them on played only days ago.
youtube.com/watch?v=pxHbmqJ-U1Y
If it is not lying, what is it?
Because it is all that you ever do in the name of the 'ADL', no less ...
LoTek
truthfor911.gather.com
You are a compulsive pathological liar. So I enjoy posting links that demonstrate this at length for your audience. That's why I just 'copy' and 'paste' the same evidence to your multiple repeat offenses.
You also can't seem to post anything in just (1) place. So I just 'Gather more 'points' by using my same comment to refute your comment 'spam'.
I see them as multiple opportunities, since I am merely replying to your repetitive obsessive - compulsion ...
LoTek
truthfor911.gather.com
I noticed a few great points being made, the best of which were made by mickey and roadking. I find it astounding that the same individuals, who claim the government is responsible for the most complex conspiracy theory of all time, are also those who cite government as being incompetent and ineffective. Does any right minded individual truly believe the Bush administration is capable of hiding a 9-11 conspiracy theory from the press when they couldn't even bury the Foley scandal properly? Let's return to reality, folks.