What if 911 was a conspiracy?

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:28 am

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0224991194

I am not saying it is, but some of those questions raised in the video leave you wondering about the results. Of course anything can be fabricated and video quality isn't the best for the purpose of this argument.

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:03 pm

If it was a conspiracy then who would win by doing something like this?

In the end I think we all got stuck in a worse situation than before 911.
The US is involved in another endless/pointless/no-win war and rights/libirties/freedom are under pressure everywere in the world.

Only one who has gotten anything is the one who meant to get chaos and unstability.

sffan · Post by **sffan** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:19 pm

Making definite conclusions from blurry video seems to be common practice with conspiracy theorists.

blurry video + imagination = OMG a missile!

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:32 pm

Super Laydock wrote:If it was a conspiracy then who would win by doing something like this?

well
-the administration got more popular and thus far more power.
-got to play the "national security" card every time they felt like violating the law/rights/liberties.
-they got a pretense to kick off a campaign of imperialism, a big goal of the Project For A New American Century, a think tank to which a significant portion of the administration belongs.
-lotta people get rich off war, defense contractors, construction companies, oil companies
-get to go down in the history books
-all GOP get the "national security" card to play every time they run for election, increasing republican/neo-con power
-get to bring up the protestant god a lot thanks to fighting a enemy of different religion, especially in the confines of bin laden claiming holy war on us. you can start defining us by our religion which helps weaken the wall between church and state, big goal of the born again fundies that make up a powerful chunk of bush's constituency, to a point including bush himself
-political prisoners disapear nicely thanks to "enemy combatant" status
-excuse to be more critical of palistine, which is good for extreme zionists
-excuse to attack iraq, which was personal for bush.
-the wars are small enough that it never really has drastic effect on the administration's life

not saying that it was a conspiracy, but a medium sized disaster like this? it's what neo-con fundies dream of

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:10 pm

LOL, I remember watching that video..."It sounded like a missile." As though some dumb-ass knows what a missile sounds like vs. a jet about to hit a building.

Super Laydock · Post by **Super Laydock** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:32 pm

sffan wrote:blurry video + imagination = OMG a missile!

Lots of clear videos + no imagination = sleeping duck.

10 missing shots on a ship don't make for the non existance of the ship...

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:56 pm

sffan wrote:blurry video + imagination = OMG a missile!

The same could be said of really bad shmups.

Ganelon · Post by **Ganelon** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:22 pm

Yeah, saw that last year and it makes some interesting points but I wasn't convinced.

howmuchkeefe · Post by **howmuchkeefe** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:45 pm

It should be too horrible to even contemplate. But... it's not. Not with these yahoos in the White House.

raiden · Post by **raiden** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:46 pm

magnum opus summed it up very well. I don´t think it´s even important who really initiated 911, the important part is that the event is being used way out of proportion. Since then, disbelief has almost been my constant reaction to political affairs. 911 itself looked like a Hollywood movie already, but after that an elected president declares something that he calls an "axis of evil"... are we living in "Lord of the Rings", or what?

MOSQUITO FIGHTER · Post by **MOSQUITO FIGHTER** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:25 pm

It's a bunch of evil people doing terrible things. I just hope they don't blow anything else up.

J-Manic · Post by **J-Manic** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:41 pm

I wouldn't be suprised one bit. Am I the only one that found it fishy that the Twin Tower attacks occured on Sept. 11th, 9-11 being the number that we Americans dial if we're in danger? Of course it was a conspiracy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool. Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time and did nothing to prevent it. I believe he's had a hidden agenda all along. And don't forget, the Bush's and Bin Laden's were in business together. The oil business! Call me crazy, but I think both families are still doing business secretly, and are just using this poor excuse for a war as a curtain. That's why Bin Laden hasn't been, and will never be captured.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:54 pm

J-Manic wrote:Of course it was a conspiracy.

Well that concludes this topic.

You know, if the continuuing war is so critical to the neo-con plot and Bush's approval rating has hit an all-time low I think we're going to need another major event soon if they want a chance to keep this going. Other than that there are just questions which involve information I couldn't verify, like actual evidence.

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:00 pm

J-Manic wrote:I wouldn't be suprised one bit. Am I the only one that found it fishy that the Twin Tower attacks occured on Sept. 11th, 9-11 being the number that we Americans dial if we're in danger? Of course it was a conspiracy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool. Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time and did nothing to prevent it. I believe he's had a hidden agenda all along. And don't forget, the Bush's and Bin Laden's were in business together. The oil business! Call me crazy, but I think both families are still doing business secretly, and are just using this poor excuse for a war as a curtain. That's why Bin Laden hasn't been, and will never be captured.

You've still got to incorporate aliens/roswell 1947, the Denver airport, and the Nazis/Hitler clone.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:14 pm

-the wars are small enough that it never really has drastic effect on the administration's life

Zah? The administration's dumping billions down the gutter, which will ultimately effect administrations and budgets for years to come, Bush's approval ratings are disastrously low and Iraq is getting closer and closer to civil war as time goes on. Believe me, history is not going to look kindly on the Bush Administration unless for some reason, against all logic and reason, Iraq and Afghanistan become pillars of the middle east and central asia. Bush is a clown.

Am I the only one that found it fishy that the Twin Tower attacks occured on Sept. 11th, 9-11 being the number that we Americans dial if we're in danger?

What makes you think bin Laden/terrorists wouldn't have that information as well?

extrarice · Post by **extrarice** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:06 pm

Assuming it was not a conspiracy, and Bin Laden/al Quaeda was indeed behind the attack, the US (well, the western world as a whole, actually) has done more damage to itself than Bin Laden could have ever achieved. He wanted to destroy our way of life. We did it for him. We have become so afraid of ghosts and shadows that might at some point jump out and bite us that we have turned the US into a shadow of its former self - a police state where people are living in fear and will gladly give up any freedoms, liberties and privacy to regain the feeling of security and safety. We have tore up the Bill of Rights and pissed on its tattered remains. The govt may have prevented other attacks (if we are to believe what they say) by illegal wiretapping, sneak-and-peak warrants, National Security Letters, and other methods that we used to use as examples of why the USSR was sucha repressive regime. In implementing these measures "in the name of national security and fighting terrorism" we have destroyed ourselves. The US is no longer the "land of the free and home of the brave."

(steps down off of soap box)

landshark · Post by **landshark** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:20 am

I like tacos.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:29 am

OMG It was all a dream and it was just an episode of the Bob Newhart show! Now let's all wear towels on our heads and break dance while the credits roll!

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:18 am

Acid King wrote:
-the wars are small enough that it never really has drastic effect on the administration's life
Zah? The administration's dumping billions down the gutter, which will ultimately effect administrations and budgets for years to come,

i meant the private lives of the administration. they're all still just as rich, bush still takes just as many vacations cheney still shoots just as many people in the face
as for "years to come" well caring for future governments requires you to have some amount of selflessness. so far they haven't demonstrated any

Bush's approval ratings are disastrously low and Iraq is getting closer and closer to civil war as time goes on. Believe me, history is not going to look kindly on the Bush Administration unless for some reason, against all logic and reason, Iraq and Afghanistan become pillars of the middle east and central asia. Bush is a clown.

yes NOW, but when this whole thing started it was going rather swimmingly.
the talk around the war room wasn't "hey lets invade the middle east to see just how low my ratings will go, lets take bets, 5:1 odds of 30%"
it was probably more like "people LOVE war presidents, they make them feel safe"
you really cant use current conditions to judge past motives.

Rob wrote: You know, if the continuuing war is so critical to the neo-con plot and Bush's approval rating has hit an all-time low I think we're going to need another major event soon if they want a chance to keep this going. Other than that there are just questions which involve information I couldn't verify, like actual evidence.

i doubt a disatster. he might produce bin laden or something, didn't he just recently decide to renew that whole effort?
he could invade sudan preventing genocide might go over well with the public. though another war might backfire.

not that i'm saying anything happened. bush might have orchestrated it, he might have LET it happen, he might have had nothing to do with it (by bush i don't mean bush specifically, just some one/people that have a vested interest in him having power)
however if it was either of the first two, the motive does exist.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:23 am

magnum opus wrote: i meant the private lives of the administration. they're all still just as rich, bush still takes just as many vacations cheney still shoots just as many people in the face
as for "years to come" well caring for future governments requires you to have some amount of selflessness. so far they haven't demonstrated any

yes NOW, but when this whole thing started it was going rather swimmingly.
the talk around the war room wasn't "hey lets invade the middle east to see just how low my ratings will go, lets take bets, 5:1 odds of 30%"
it was probably more like "people LOVE war presidents, they make them feel safe"
you really cant use current conditions to judge past motives.

I wasn't judging their past motives, you were making it sound like it's all peaches and cream for the president and his administration when everything they have touched has turned to shit. Who really cares about motivations when the only thing that really matters is results? Besides, attributing motives based on present conditions is all the conspiracy theory does (9/11 happens "They planned it, man". We invade afghanistan "They did it to engineer an invasion of afghanistan!" THey invade Iraq:"They just wnated to invade IRaq!" etc) and pretty much all you just did in your original post.

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:56 am

Acid King wrote: I wasn't judging their past motives, you were making it sound like it's all peaches and cream for the president and his administration when everything they have touched has turned to shit.

yeah see i wasn't talking about the present. again. yes shit's gone south NOW it was working fine 4 years though.

Who really cares about motivations when the only thing that really matters is results?

involuntary manslaughter versus 3rd degree murder man. context is always important
if it happened because bush is a little mentally deficient and things got out of hand, then he's a world class fuck up
if it happened because he wanted it to happen then he is an evil little man.

Besides, attributing motives based on present conditions is all the conspiracy theory does (9/11 happens "They planned it, man". We invade afghanistan "They did it to engineer an invasion of afghanistan!" THey invade Iraq:"They just wnated to invade IRaq!" etc) and pretty much all you just did in your original post.

except those list of motives? its the same list i had september 12 2001.

-bush has been a born again fundie with an agressively evangelical fundie voting base from day 1
-the administration has been composed largely of neo-cons bent on american imperialism from day 1
-people know they get rich off war from day 1
-bush being elected with a minority put him in a position of needing a large popularity boost if he was going to do anything from day 1
-it came out later that bush had a personal thing concerning iraq from day 1
-neo-cons running on "strong on defense" style platforms have been happening since reagan
-political prisoners have been a part of politics since recorded history
-historically you get to pass all sorts of unconstitutional bullshit in time of war alien and sedition act man

so yeah none of the motives i listed are only valid in light of what followed.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:54 am

landshark wrote:I like tacos.

There you are. Where were you when we were having the talk about the Forbidden-to-Tate big screen?

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:55 am

Acid King wrote:Believe me, history is not going to look kindly on the Bush Administration...

I wonder if anyone remembers the few months that Bush was president before 9-11 happened (it does feel like a long time ago, at least to me)...as I recall, pretty much every one of his policies was regarded as a joke, and he was heckled from all over the place...heck, remember the "That's My Bush" TV show? Then, of course, the attacks occurred, people got frightened, looked to the prez for some security, and he talked tough, and from then on anyone who dared question him on anything was labeled as a terrorist ally. Only recently (after Katrina, Iraq, etc.) have "the old days" returned to some extent, though there are still some who will jump down your throat if you question anything the president does.

Whoever was responsible for it (I don't believe that there was a "conspiracy" beyond Al-Qaeda, though methinks it's pretty obvious at this point that the administration botched some obvious warnings before the attacks), the fact remains that 9-11 was the single thing which "legitimized" Bush as president in the eyes of many, and he's rode it hard ever since: simply put, though it sounds awful to say it, it was the best possible thing that could have happened to him.

FatCobra · Post by **FatCobra** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:17 pm

How did the terrorists hijack the plane again?

And why didn't the passegeners do anything about it, you'd think there was at one brave person who could have been able to beat the crap out of the hijackers? I think we need more security on the plane; issue everyone an aluminum baseball bat when they board the plane.

As for the prez, somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot. (But I guess Bush is doing a good enough job.)

Sly Cherry Chunks · Post by **Sly Cherry Chunks** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:23 pm

^Wasn't it with pepper-spray? I hear that stuff stings like a bitch.

Maybe people were too busy going "OH SHIT MY EYES IT HURTS!" to fight off the terrorists.

extrarice · Post by **extrarice** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 pm

BulletMagnet wrote:...the fact remains that 9-11 was the single thing which "legitimized" Bush as president in the eyes of many, and he's rode it hard ever since...

Exactly. Now we have "the war on terror" being renamed "The Long War" and likened to the cold war ><

Zweihander · Post by **Zweihander** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:10 pm

old news.

landshark · Post by **landshark** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:11 pm

Specineff wrote:
landshark wrote:I like tacos.
There you are. Where were you when we were having the talk about the Forbidden-to-Tate big screen?

Sorry 'bout that. I must have missed that thread.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:51 pm

magnum opus wrote:
except those list of motives? its the same list i had september 12 2001.

so yeah none of the motives i listed are only valid in light of what followed.

Yes, they are only valid in light of what followed, because the motives you place on them are all dependent on the effect of the attack and the results of the policy it would let them enact. "we'll get more support if... " "We'll get rich if..." "we'll go down in the history books if..." You're retroactively applying motivations, even if you thought the same things on sept. 12th, it's still looking at the attack after the fact and saying "This makes sense because he'll get this this and this..."

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:25 am

Acid King wrote:
magnum opus wrote:
except those list of motives? its the same list i had september 12 2001.

so yeah none of the motives i listed are only valid in light of what followed.
Yes, they are only valid in light of what followed, because the motives you place on them are all dependent on the effect of the attack and the results of the policy it would let them enact. "we'll get more support if... " "We'll get rich if..." "we'll go down in the history books if..." You're retroactively applying motivations, even if you thought the same things on sept. 12th, it's still looking at the attack after the fact and saying "This makes sense because he'll get this this and this..."

you don't really get how this works do you?

prior to the attack bush, who was largely elected on the neo-con/new-american-century penny was all set to be an very ineffectual president, meaning the people that put him in power and the people in power weren't going to get to do what they wan't
so people sit down and think okay what can we do to achieve the following goals:
- "everything i mentioned" or at least many
then they come up with an idea think about the side effects during this phase they realize the other incidental side effects, "yeah hey if we did that then we could use it to do_____ too", possible risks yadda yadda. In the event that the payoff is big enough and the risks small enough they go through with it.
this is how decisions get made

like i said they already knew they/he wanted more power more money and more american imperialism long before anything happened, before clinton got elected the first time, they knew they wanted that. if/when bush as president wasn't giving it to them they would sit down and figure out the next move. sometimes they settle on policy matters targeted to make him more popular (which is why despite being a republican, the "small governement" party he still pomised healthcare and education and all those social services that are traditionally democrat's sales pitch)
sometimes it's a goodwill move like debt/famine relief. and just possibly the move they decided had the best payoff/risk ratio might be staging a small scale attack.

this isn't high level political intrigue here, it's the same thought process as "i'm bored maybe i'll go see a movie, hey while i'm at the mall i can pick up some new shoes, and as long as i'm out i might as well swing by the gamestop to see if they have any new releases i want, yeah that sounds like a good plan"

as an addendum it feels like i'm arguing with some one who came in halfway through wag the dog or canadian bacon and (having not seen the first half) started arguing that the presidents had no motive to invent an enemy