What is the general reason for why the 9-11 conspiracy was created?

[buka001]

What, in the closed eyes of a truther, is the motivation for Bush creating this conspiracy?

Was it to create a war in Afghanistan and Iraq? What was the purpose?

[JoeyDonuts]

What, in the closed eyes of a truther, is the motivation for Bush creating this conspiracy?

Was it to create a war in Afghanistan and Iraq? What was the purpose?

Hard to say really. Best to go and read their incoherent rants if you have the stomach for it. War for oil, Phase One of NWO, Bilderberg said so, Cheney/Halliburton contracts, take your pick.

From what I can observe, truthers put Cheney on quite a pedestal. He's like a cross between Ernst Blofeld and Snidely Whiplash.

[Horatius]

What, in the closed eyes of a truther, is the motivation for Bush creating this conspiracy?




It was merely the first step in a plan to allow the Republicans Democrats to declare Martial Law, and change the Constitution to allow the Bush Crime Family The Hidden Muslims to declare Bush Obama President for Life of Everybody.

Just wait, any day now you'll see Teh Twoof!





Oh, and throw a FEMA camp in there somewhere.

[ElMondoHummus]

Tell you the truth, Buka, I think the mindset is broader than just pinning blame on Bush or writing off 9/11 to a supposed desire to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. From what I understand, the conspiratorial mindset tends to be more sweeping than that. Recall, one of the first truthers - Alex Jones - had been pitching conspiratorial stories about the US government well before 9/11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110814), and he proposed his first 9/11 conspiracy story on the day of the attack itself. As another example, Holocaust denier Carol Valentine gave birth to the "No suicide pilots" proposal within a month of the attack, and she was already known for conspiratorial beliefs before that (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62969). In both cases, their 9/11 conspiratorial belief is simply a component of their overall paranoid worldview.

Ted Goertzel wrote in Political Psychology (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630) (Dec. 1994):

Conspiratorial beliefs are useful in monological belif systems since they provide an easy, automatic explanation for any new phenomenon which might threaten the belief system. In a monological belief system, each of the beliefs serves as evidence for each of the other beliefs. The more conspiracies a monological thinker believes in, the more likely he or she is to believe in any new conspiracy theory which may be proposed...

...The key issue is not the belief in a specific conspiracy, but the logical processes which led to that belief.

... Monological conspiracy thinkers do not search for factual evidence to test their theories. Instead, they offer the same hackneyed explanation for every problem -- it's the conspiracy of the Jews, the capitalists, the patriarchy, the communists, the medical establishment, or whatever. In these cases, the proof which is offered is not evidence about the specific incident or issue, but the general pattern; for example, the X conspiracy has been responsible for all of our other problems, so it is obvious that X must be responsible for this one as well.


Or in straightforward terms, Goertzel's work indicates that it's less that a given event has elements that can be interpreted conspiratorially, and more that those elements can be viewed in a broader, paranoid worldview. Indeed, those elements can be woven into the overall paranoid tapestry they've constructed. This may seem like a statement of the obvious, but Goertzel has quantitatively demonstrated this: The biggest percentages of respondents to his study believed in two or more conspiracies (they were all pre-9/11 ones, BTW: Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas, AIDS created/spread by the government, UFOs, etc.), and that those people indicated a degenerating belief in general trust in both government and society in general.


The strong correlation with the scale of Anomia indicates that belief in conspiracies is associated with the feelings of alienation and disaffection from the system. Volkan (1985) suggests that during periods of insecurity and discontent people often feel a need for a tangible enemy on which to externalize their angry feelings. Conspiracy theories may help in this process by providing a tangible enemy to blame for problems which otherwise seem too abstract and impersonal. Conspiracy theories also provide ready answers for unanswered questions and help to resolve contradictions between known "facts" and an individual's belief system.


To make a long story short, conspiracism tends to be merely a part of an overall paranoid worldview; people who tend to cite or go so far as to peddle 9/11 fantasy tend to have been predisposed to such narratives even before the event, and continue to pick up on other conspiratorial beliefs as they "research" a specific one. We've seen this ourselves among truthers who've come to this forum; off the top of my head, A-Train and MaGZ have both retailed antisemetic "Jews did it" theses, bwinwright has retailed odd obsessions with the Catholic church, and other truthers here have readily peddled economic and other political woo. It's more that a given mindset has a proclivity towards acceptance of such beliefs than it is that a given event has "hooks" on which someone can latch on to and develop paranoid conspiracy narratives around.

[~enigma~]

Same reason some think Apollo was faked.

[T.A.M.]

Tell you the truth, Buka, I think the mindset is broader than just pinning blame on Bush or writing off 9/11 to a supposed desire to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. From what I understand, the conspiratorial mindset tends to be more sweeping than that. Recall, one of the first truthers - Alex Jones - had been pitching conspiratorial stories about the US government well before 9/11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110814), and he proposed his first 9/11 conspiracy story on the day of the attack itself. As another example, Holocaust denier Carol Valentine gave birth to the "No suicide pilots" proposal within a month of the attack, and she was already known for conspiratorial beliefs before that (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62969). In both cases, their 9/11 conspiratorial belief is simply a component of their overall paranoid worldview.

Ted Goertzel wrote in Political Psychology (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630) (Dec. 1994):


Or in straightforward terms, Goertzel's work indicates that it's less that a given event has elements that can be interpreted conspiratorially, and more that those elements can be viewed in a broader, paranoid worldview. Indeed, those elements can be woven into the overall paranoid tapestry they've constructed. This may seem like a statement of the obvious, but Goertzel has quantitatively demonstrated this: The biggest percentages of respondents to his study believed in two or more conspiracies (they were all pre-9/11 ones, BTW: Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas, AIDS created/spread by the government, UFOs, etc.), and that those people indicated a degenerating belief in general trust in both government and society in general.



To make a long story short, conspiracism tends to be merely a part of an overall paranoid worldview; people who tend to cite or go so far as to peddle 9/11 fantasy tend to have been predisposed to such narratives even before the event, and continue to pick up on other conspiratorial beliefs as they "research" a specific one. We've seen this ourselves among truthers who've come to this forum; off the top of my head, A-Train and MaGZ have both retailed antisemetic "Jews did it" theses, bwinwright has retailed odd obsessions with the Catholic church, and other truthers here have readily peddled economic and other political woo. It's more that a given mindset has a proclivity towards acceptance of such beliefs than it is that a given event has "hooks" on which someone can latch on to and develop paranoid conspiracy narratives around.

excellent post enigma EMH. The Goertzel paper is an excellent study, and one of the few that covers conspiracy theory believers directly.

TAM:)

[Stellafane]

What, in the closed eyes of a truther, is the motivation for Bush creating this conspiracy?

From what I can gather from this whole self-contradictory ocean of insanity and stupidity, Bush did it for the sheer, utter hell of it.

[~enigma~]

excellent post enigma. The Goertzel paper is an excellent study, and one of the few that covers conspiracy theory believers directly.

TAM:)
eh?

EMH brought up the Goertzel paper :)

[T.A.M.]

eh?

EMH brought up the Goertzel paper :)

oops...my bad...long morning in clinic.

I retract my compliment and pass it on to EMH...

but I wish (an know I will see) such posts from you in the future.

TAM:o:o

[ElMondoHummus]

excellent post enigma EMH. The Goertzel paper is an excellent study, and one of the few that covers conspiracy theory believers directly.

TAM:)

Thanks! :D

As some others on the net have pointed out, that paper's analysis is incomplete. There's an obvious indication of proclivities towards paranoid thinking, and I brought that paper up to illustrate the fact that any individual conspiracy fantasy is perceived as part of a larger narrative to the average fantasy addict. That's the case with 9/11 woo: It's really just an extension of the "Government Is Plotting To Rule The World" type of fantasy. But the research I've seen has not answered what "pushes people over the edge" to begin with. I found the following (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.greek/2009-03/msg00140.pdf) while searching earlier:

Showing that belief in conspiracy theories correlates with mistrust and disillusionment tells us nothing about the ultimate cause, what drives people to take up irrational beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence.


... and that's a good point: Why do people go for what is disproven from the beginning? That's unanswered by Goertzel. Granted, that question may be unanswerable - and the Goertzel paper definitely doesn't allow for such answers, given the questions they asked - but it is a missing piece of knowledge that I'd love to see researched at some point. Not all people with paranoid tendencies go for conspiracy theories, and some I know who fall for some harshly reject others. The mentality of what gets them started would be an interesting topic to research, if anyone ever gets around to doing it.

[sylvan8798]

Whomever is blamed, 9/11 seems to be the ultimate in "multi-tasking" events.

1) The military wanted to have a coup to overthrow the president (by telling him they will kill him if he doesn't do as ordered).

2) Cheney and company wanted to make money on wars in the middle east.

3) The Illuminati, who do everything according to numerology, want to destroy the US economy so they can institute world control, kill 85% of the population with flu vaccines, and have the Amero.

4) The US banking interests would get oil out of it somewhere.

5) PNAC would get more military funding.

6) Silverstein wanted to get rid of some unwieldy asbestos problem, and collect lots of insurance in the process.

7) Someone wanted to get rid of some pesky auditors in the pentagon.

8) They didn't use a plane at the pentagon because they wanted to test some new type of weapon.

9) They wanted to try out some different new weapon at the WTC for use as a building demolition device.

10) WTC 7 had to go because there were implicating records there that couldn't be shredded or otherwise destroyed.

11) Bombs were set off in the basement of WTC 1 (and 2?) BEFORE the planes even hit to weaken the structure AND to increase the shock and awe (for a few basement workers?).

12) The whole purpose of United 93/Shanksville was to provide the feel good story of the passengers taking over the plane, even though the plane landed in Cleveland and the passengers are now living in, apparently, France.

All these ideas have come from the same poster, btw.

[EvilBiker]

My initial thought was that [broad brush] your average American [/broad brush] could not believe that they, as a world superpower, could be laid low by a small group of "cave-dwelling" terrorists, and were looking at donkeys to pin tails to.

Since then, however, I feel that it's just another conspiracy to the same bunch of conspiracy nuts. Of course, there are the obvious money-grubbers who've taken advantage of the whole situation.

[T.A.M.]

I think it is left over from the cold war. I mean here was the USA, the only true power capable of fending off (or keeping at a stale mate) the powerful soviet union...yet now people are to believe that that same bastion was unable to prevent a "bunch of arabs in caves" from killing 3000 americans on their home soil. You can see how people would almost find a CT easier to swallow.

TAM:)

[tsig]

What, in the closed eyes of a truther, is the motivation for Bush creating this conspiracy?

Was it to create a war in Afghanistan and Iraq? What was the purpose?

They're just evil(NWO, Masons, Bilderbergers, ...).

[abenja1]

They're just evil(NWO, Masons, Bilderbergers, ...).

Don't forget the Jews. Any tragedy is a new reason to find blame in the jews.

[Juniversal]

I've heard many theorist imply 9/11 was a means to establish the "NWO".

"You are questioning the motive.
As a result of 9/11, the US and its allies are benefiting from a virtually unobjectionable geopolitical alibi. Essentially it is Israel and Palestina at global scale.
The rest - all kinds of fraud in the aftermath (with or without foreknowledge), abusive domestic laws, etc - all that is a mere bonus IMHO.
At the core we have cannon-fodder geopolitics: an extreme form of cynicism."

^...This is a response I got from a truther once I mentioned I didn't see the value in blowing up a building after driving a plane into it. But he really didn't answer my question nor convince me there'd be any value in destroying our countrys stability to establish some sort of alliance with other countries (including ones we actually fued with).

The fact is human beings (especially us males) are inherently competitive and disagreeable so in my eyes it's pretty rediculous to believe that some secret alliance that requires cohesiveness and harmony would go on without a hitch or with everybodys approval (including politicians, the media, the military ect.). It's easy to view these people as evil 2-d batman villians who are evil for evils sake but the fact is they have families and friends (who they care for believe it or not) that would all benifit from prosperity as opposed to plight. Conspiracy theorist don't look at the human side often enough.

[George152]

A demonstration of the numbers of badly educated gullible fools who have access to the Net ?

[parky76]

What, in the closed eyes of a truther, is the motivation for Bush creating this conspiracy?

Was it to create a war in Afghanistan and Iraq? What was the purpose?

You're not thinking 3 dimensionally.

The purpose of 9-11 was to conquer the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Muhahahahah!!

:p

[TobiasTheViking]

boredom

[Sabrina]

10) WTC 7 had to go because there were implicating records there that couldn't be shredded or otherwise destroyed.

I think of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, this one annoys me the most. It's possible to destroy most anything in the world; what the heck makes someone think something incriminating CAN'T be destroyed? What material was it made of that required several tons of debris from another building falling on it, starting numerous fires, and weakening a uniquely designed structure to eventually fall in order to be destroyed?

Irritating man, I tell you.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, this one annoys me the most. It's possible to destroy most anything in the world; what the heck makes someone think something incriminating CAN'T be destroyed? What material was it made of that required several tons of debris from another building falling on it, starting numerous fires, and weakening a uniquely designed structure to eventually fall in order to be destroyed?

Irritating man, I tell you.

The evidence of the conspiracy was imprinted on carbon nano-tubes.

[ElMondoHummus]

10) WTC 7 had to go because there were implicating records there that couldn't be shredded or otherwise destroyed.


I think of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, this one annoys me the most. It's possible to destroy most anything in the world; what the heck makes someone think something incriminating CAN'T be destroyed? What material was it made of that required several tons of debris from another building falling on it, starting numerous fires, and weakening a uniquely designed structure to eventually fall in order to be destroyed?

Irritating man, I tell you.

Tell you the truth, I've never heard truthers try to claim that the material was not vulnerable to being shredded or otherwise easily destroyed. On the contrary, one specific excuse I was once given was that some of the documents destroyed were Enron criminal investigation records. To the best of my knowledge, those would indeed be electronic or on paper, and therefore amenable to destruction by methods far short of blowing up a building :rolleyes:. Heck, elsewhere in this forum, back when that argument was popular, you'll see a lot of posters snarking about truthers never having heard of a shredder.

If truthers are now trying to claim that the "records" were not "shreddable", then they're really not evolving their argument well. But, I'm just not surprised by that.

[Grizzly Bear]

If truthers are now trying to claim that the "records" were not "shreddable", then they're really not evolving their argument well. But, I'm just not surprised by that.

At least for the really stupid arguments I'd say the conspiracy was made out of sheer ignorance. I don't really argue from the politics end of the CT's, more from the architecture end... most of you have seen me post over the last year to see this... Those people don't understand the areas of expertise involved period and their pre existing woo doesn't help that, and are therefore much more susceptible to being baited into the conspiracy theories.

[Juniversal]

Tell you the truth, I've never heard truthers try to claim that the material was not vulnerable to being shredded or otherwise easily destroyed. On the contrary, one specific excuse I was once given was that some of the documents destroyed were Enron criminal investigation records. To the best of my knowledge, those would indeed be electronic or on paper, and therefore amenable to destruction by methods far short of blowing up a building :rolleyes:. Heck, elsewhere in this forum, back when that argument was popular, you'll see a lot of posters snarking about truthers never having heard of a shredder.

If truthers are now trying to claim that the "records" were not "shreddable", then they're really not evolving their argument well. But, I'm just not surprised by that.That was always funny to me. The conspirators took months (or years) to rig building 7 with explosives and blew it up to destroy documents that could easily be shreded or simply burned. And I find it hard to believe the documents would only be available in one location (not very likely).

[Bobert]

Buka,
DO NOT listen to any of the above posters THEY ARE ALLL paid government employees who post on the internet to discredit the truth movement!!!!!!

[NWO Sentryman]

I think it is partially a hatred for the government, people with too much time on their hands, and wanting to make money. LBH, a huge internet industry has spawned out of this terrible disaster, which gives the word Profiteer a new meaning.

[ElMondoHummus]

That was always funny to me. The conspirators took months (or years) to rig building 7 with explosives and blew it up to destroy documents that could easily be shreded or simply burned. And I find it hard to believe the documents would only be available in one location (not very likely).

They weren't. At least not the Enron docs. As history has shown us, that prosecution went on just fine; other documents and necessary components to the prosecution were quite obviously available elsewhere. Destroying WTC 7 didn't even appear to affect the process of prosecuting Ken Lay, let alone destroy any chance of bringing him to trial.

Demolishing 7 World Trade to destroy Enron investigation documents was always a stupid thesis.

[ElMondoHummus]

Buka,
DO NOT listen to any of the above posters THEY ARE ALLL paid government employees who post on the internet to discredit the truth movement!!!!!!

Just speaking for myself, I'd like to be paid some more, so if anyone's got a decent offer...

;)

[portlandatheist]

It was to rape and pillage Afghanistan's vast wealth and to build an oil pipeline. Using "Saudi" hijackers was the perfect cover going to war with Iraq. Someday, we will get free oil from Iraq.

[JoeyDonuts]

It was to rape and pillage Afghanistan's vast wealth and to build an oil pipeline. Using "Saudi" hijackers was the perfect cover going to war with Iraq. Someday, we will get free oil from Iraq.

You know, if you look at this sentence without thinking, I can see why somebody like Heidi Montag would believe this sort of thing.

Me smells a Poe.

[eromitlab]

They weren't. At least not the Enron docs. As history has shown us, that prosecution went on just fine; other documents and necessary components to the prosecution were quite obviously available elsewhere. Destroying WTC 7 didn't even appear to affect the process of prosecuting Ken Lay, let alone destroy any chance of bringing him to trial.

Demolishing 7 World Trade to destroy Enron investigation documents was always a stupid thesis.

Made even dumber when they make note of the fire in Cheney's office destroying documents, as a few truthers I've encountered have.
It's either that or the nWo evolved their document destruction techniques between 2001 and 2007... they only had to set an office fire (with therm*te, no doubt) to destroy the documents, instead of setting an office fire and using it as cover to pull the entire building hours after flying planes into nearby buildings that were demolished shortly thereafter with the same explosives.

[BigBird]

I think people have too much time on their hands, and have seen one too many Nicholas Cage movies, thinking that everything in life is some piece of a puzzle they can stick together if they watch enough youtube videos on the subject... :rolleyes:

[The Platypus]

It seems to me that 911 conspiracy was started for two reasons.

1. Too create a whole new little bubble of recruitment into the paranoid ranks of the NWO/Joo hater cults.

2. Why all cults primary goal is always to recruit new members, because that's just more dumb gullible minions to fleece of their cash and have control and power over.

[Percival]

***** and giggles?:)

[dropzone]

May I combine the posts of The Platypus and Percival? And toss in a large measure of gullibility?

[Metullus]

To be honest, the whole thing started off as a prank, but then we got a hold of some really good weed and a Travelocity account and figured "Why the hell not?"

[dropzone]

To be honest, the whole thing started off as a prank, but then we got a hold of some really good weed and a Travelocity account and figured "Why the hell not?"That falls apart in the third clause. No Truther could apply with Travelocity without having his credit card rejected. :p

[Percival]

While I do not think the official story is true and is in itself a 'conspiracy theory' I dont think the so called '9-11 truth movement' is about 'the truth' and rather was created by those involved to divert and distract those who are prone to looking closer at such things and keep them from finding out what really did happen.

There are simply too many direct ties between the USgov, western intelligence agencies and terrorist organizations for the official story to be true and therefore I think terrorism itself is used by these organizations to 'bring about certain ends.'

State sponsored terrorism is nothing new and anyone who has studied history has to be aware of that, why would anything be different now, govts have used such tactics since the beginning of recorded history, nothing has changed, still the same old power hungry naked emperors running the show today.

But, dont take anything the 9-11 truth movement has to say seriously, when they say **** like controlled demo, no planes, holograms etc, that is smoke and mirrors and only used to muddy the waters further. The truth can ONLY be found by following the money trail.

[Percival]

As to WHY the govt would be involved in such an event, well there are many reasons for that:

1) Oil
2) Expand Western corporate and cultural influence in to regions that have traditionally rejected it.
3)Creation of a National Security Police State through a consolidation of Executive branch powers and erosion of those pesky civil liberties heretofore afforded to the American people.
4) As Smedley Butler told us "War is a racket", lining the pockets of adminstration friendly defense contractors pays great dividends for the military industrial complex.
5) To keep Americans scared, distracted, diverted and thereby more easily manipulated and exploited by those whose interest is served through a looting of the commons and to further keep Americans distracted from and to put in to place draconian legislation to deal with, the coming global economic meltdown.
6) To ensure dollar hegemony isnt undermined.
7) To justify a constant military presence in the oil rich Middle East and further build bases that surround and neutralize any present or future Russian or Chinese threat.
8) Another small step towards centralized global governance.
9) Because state sponsored terrorism has worked for thousands of years.
10) Because they know the American people will not nothing about it even if they did find out the truth.


Etc etc.

[dropzone]

(Why am I wasting keystrokes doing this?)

No, Percival, there is a difference between causing an event and taking advantage of one.

[Percival]

(Why am I wasting keystrokes doing this?)

No, Percival, there is a difference between causing an event and taking advantage of one.

I am aware of that and I am not saying it was caused by the govt, it may or may not have been, but they did indeed take advantage of it at the very least, which is still corrupt and dishonest and an abuse of power. It is manipulation and exploitation of the American people either way.

No need to be a smart ass, I am NOT a 9-11 truther, I just try and keep and open mind and look at the facts in front of me. I do not know what happened that day but I have many questions that I seek answers for, I am by nature a skeptic and that goes both ways, skeptical of anyone who says they know the truth, whether it be the govt or those in the conspiracy theory community. I am just here for good, honest discussion, so lets not make this personal.;)

[JoeyDonuts]

The truth can ONLY be found by following the money trail.

How do you know this for certain? By that statement, you've excluded every other way of collecting evidence and analysis except for analyzing the finances of the people involved.

From your speculations as to why an attack would have been masterminded by the U.S. government, it seems that you have a long way to go towards convincing yourself of your hypothesis, if you are indeed a skeptic.

What, specifically, about the official version of events re: 911 do you think is wrong, or lacking factually?

[Percival]

How do you know this for certain? By that statement, you've excluded every other way of collecting evidence and analysis except for analyzing the finances of the people involved.

From your speculations as to why an attack would have been masterminded by the U.S. government, it seems that you have a long way to go towards convincing yourself of your hypothesis, if you are indeed a skeptic.

What, specifically, about the official version of events re: 911 do you think is wrong, or lacking factually?

Youre correct, ONLY was a bad choice of words but I do feel very strongly that the only certain way of proving what really happened is to follow the money as money trails rarely life, but yes, there are other avenues one could take to get to the bottom of things I suppose.

I do not presently have the time to break down the 9-11 commission report as it is late in the night here and I must rise early for work but I will get to that as the thread continues on and time permits. I am new here and I do like what I see, this place seems to offer a higher standard of dialogue than other forums I tend to frequent, so I plan to hang around a while and take part in it.

I will tell you what I think happened on that day as briefly as I can and we can go from there. I am not yet ready to disclose my true identity on here but I have written extensively on this topic and commonly travel around the world lecturing and attending various conferences listening to other lecture on the topic.


We do know for a fact that Pentagon military drills were taking place the day of 9-11 and that they were in fact simulating a terrorist attack of using planes to hit buildings. I believe there is some evidence that could support the idea that the 19 hijackers were brought to this country by various intelligence agencies with the expectation that they would be trained to PLAY A ROLE and take part in the drills that were going on that day. In short they were hired, funded and trained to get on those planes and act, as part of the drill, like they were hijacking the planes and intending to slam them in to the WTC towers, they had no intention of actually doing this as it was a drill and they were hired only to play the role of hijackers and at the end of the drill their job would be done. I believe that once the planes were in the air and the hijackers had simulated the hijacking and played the role they were funded and trained to play, the drill went live on orders from someone (I dont want to name names at this point because I really dont know who was in charge ultimately) and the planes were then remote controlled and flown in to the buildings by a command center on the ground located somewhere near ground zero or a nearby military base. And I believe the 19 hijackers went to their deaths as shocked, scared and surpirsed as the rest of the passengers, understanding that they were only playing a role in a simulated terrorist attack DRILL and not doing the real thing. I think that memos were sent out to all agencies pertinent to air defense and oversight indicating that a drill was taking place that day and that anything they saw out of the ordinary was part of this drill and shouldnt be cause for concern and normal protocol should not be followed, in short they were given stand down orders because it was a drill and not the real thing. This is why there was no defense or military response to the days activities and well, the rest as they say, is history.

I do of course have evidence to support this theory and I will get to that as we progress in this discussion and I feel more comfortable sharing my work in full.

Feel free to discuss and critque as desired. I will return tomorrow once I get to the office and address any responses accordingly.

[JoeyDonuts]

I am not yet ready to disclose my true identity on here but I have written extensively on this topic and commonly travel around the world lecturing and attending various conferences listening to other lecture on the topic.

You realize, for an appeal to authority to work, it helps to identify that authority? Odds are your work has been already thoroughly debunked on this site if you are as high-profile as you claim to be.

I believe there is some evidence that could support the idea that the 19 hijackers were brought to this country by various intelligence agencies with the expectation that they would be trained to PLAY A ROLE and take part in the drills that were going on that day.

I confess, I haven't heard this particular canard yet. Maybe some of the older hands will attest to this, but the whole idea is ridiculous on the surface and every other level. I spent six years in the military, and did countless drills during that time. I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the scope of the exercises that were conducted - what their purpose was and what agencies were involved.

I believe that once the planes were in the air and the hijackers had simulated the hijacking and played the role they were funded and trained to play, the drill went live on orders from someone (I dont want to name names at this point because I really dont know who was in charge ultimately) and the planes were then remote controlled and flown in to the buildings by a command center on the ground located somewhere near ground zero or a nearby military base.

There are dozens of technical problems that make this an impossibility, all of which we have gone through on this board at great length. On this board we have professional aviators, RF experts, computer techs, and even a guy that works with JPL. If you're going to push this theory AGAIN, you'd better have some serious science to back it up. And by that I mean have blueprints and working copies of equipment that doesn't exist. You've also implicated ground crews, intermediate maintenance activities, and the pilots themselves for looking the other way during pre-flight checks. And I'm not sure if this was the case for every aircraft, but at least one of them wasn't even fly-by-wire, thus ruling out any kind of "remote activation" of the plane's existing navigation equipment.

And I believe the 19 hijackers went to their deaths as shocked, scared and surpirsed as the rest of the passengers, understanding that they were only playing a role in a simulated terrorist attack DRILL and not doing the real thing.

They went to their deaths reciting the takfir.

I think that memos were sent out to all agencies pertinent to air defense and oversight indicating that a drill was taking place that day and that anything they saw out of the ordinary was part of this drill and shouldnt be cause for concern and normal protocol should not be followed, in short they were given stand down orders because it was a drill and not the real thing.

And I suppose you're ready to produce for us, a copy of one such memo? I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we authenticate it. There are folks on this board who are real uncanny when it comes to spotting forgeries. Just sayin'.

This is why there was no defense or military response to the days activities and well, the rest as they say, is history.

You'd better believe there was a military response, pal. They did the damn best they could in a cluster****ed scenario involving crappy communications, spotty reporting, bad intra-agency coordination, among other things. Or are you calling the man who had the floor at NEADS on 9/11 a liar?

Feel free to discuss and critque as desired. I will return tomorrow once I get to the office and address any responses accordingly.

I for one, will try to remain as civil as my temper allows. But for someone to allege that the military did nothing to attempt stop the attacks is a slap in the face to everyone that's ever worn a U.S. uniform.

Present your evidence. I can almost guarantee we've seen it before.

[Percival]

You realize, for an appeal to authority to work, it helps to identify that authority? Odds are your work has been already thoroughly debunked on this site if you are as high-profile as you claim to be.



I confess, I haven't heard this particular canard yet. Maybe some of the older hands will attest to this, but the whole idea is ridiculous on the surface and every other level. I spent six years in the military, and did countless drills during that time. I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the scope of the exercises that were conducted - what their purpose was and what agencies were involved.



There are dozens of technical problems that make this an impossibility, all of which we have gone through on this board at great length. On this board we have professional aviators, RF experts, computer techs, and even a guy that works with JPL. If you're going to push this theory AGAIN, you'd better have some serious science to back it up. And by that I mean have blueprints and working copies of equipment that doesn't exist. You've also implicated ground crews, intermediate maintenance activities, and the pilots themselves for looking the other way during pre-flight checks. And I'm not sure if this was the case for every aircraft, but at least one of them wasn't even fly-by-wire, thus ruling out any kind of "remote activation" of the plane's existing navigation equipment.



They went to their deaths reciting the takfir.



And I suppose you're ready to produce for us, a copy of one such memo? I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we authenticate it. There are folks on this board who are real uncanny when it comes to spotting forgeries. Just sayin'.



You'd better believe there was a military response, pal. They did the damn best they could in a cluster****ed scenario involving crappy communications, spotty reporting, bad intra-agency coordination, among other things. Or are you calling the man who had the floor at NEADS on 9/11 a liar?



I for one, will try to remain as civil as my temper allows. But for someone to allege that the military did nothing to attempt stop the attacks is a slap in the face to everyone that's ever worn a U.S. uniform.

Present your evidence. I can almost guarantee we've seen it before.


I have to hit the hay but I appreciate your response and I will def address those one by one in the morning as time permits, but please understand I am not preaching this as gospel here, it is all based on conjecture and speculation, I am just throwing some ideas out there and see where they land. But dont be too quick to dismiss this, there is a lot more to come that will make this all sound a little more real and possible.

[dtugg]

No need to be a smart ass, I am NOT a 9-11 truther

[Proceeds to prove that he is a twoofer.]

Of course you're a twoofer. Why are you lying about it?

[JoeyDonuts]

I have to hit the hay but I appreciate your response and I will def address those one by one in the morning as time permits, but please understand I am not preaching this as gospel here, it is all based on conjecture and speculation, I am just throwing some ideas out there and see where they land. But dont be too quick to dismiss this, there is a lot more to come that will make this all sound a little more real and possible.

You just said it's based on conjecture and speculation, and then freely admit to the "spagghetti-doneness" style of conspiracist propagation.

Conjecture and speculation have been the norm for people questioning the events of 9/11 for going on eight years now.

You have got an awful lot of ground to make up here. There is a mountain of verifiable scientifically valid evidence that supports the official version of events as laid out by the 9/11 Commission Report and subsequent texts.

Forgive me for being brash, but you seem like Encino Man crawling out of the ground. You might want to check the date on your computer.

[Dave Rogers]

I am NOT a 9-11 truther, I just try and keep and open mind and look at the facts in front of me.

I don't know about everyone else - although I have considerable evidence that many people feel the same way - but I find this kind of outright blatant lying from truthers to be rather depressing. The mark of woo only took one more post to be revealed:

We do know for a fact that Pentagon military drills were taking place the day of 9-11 and that they were in fact simulating a terrorist attack of using planes to hit buildings.

The first "fact" is a long-debunked cannard; we all, every one of us on this forum, either know this to be untrue or have decided to ignore the overwhelming evidence that it's not true. The only people who believe this are 9/11 truthers.

Percival, whoever you are, and however well-known you may be, you've failed the first test. The rest of your fantasy is acceptable here because you've qualified it by "I believe" and "I think", but to claim military drills of terrorist attacks using planes to hit buildings as a fact is not acceptable. There were no drills on 9/11 using this scenario; what you claim as a "fact" is a classic 9/11 truther deception, conflating one exercise that simulated a hijack with another that posited an accidental plane crash into a building. Let me be one of the first to make this clear: you will not be allowed to get away with this sort of deception unchallenged.

Dave

[MikeW]

We do know for a fact that Pentagon military drills were taking place the day of 9-11 and that they were in fact simulating a terrorist attack of using planes to hit buildings.
NEADs were planning a hijack drill on 9/11, but it had nothing to do with "using planes to hit buildings".

And although you use the plural to try and suggest drills involving multiple attacks, that's not true either. The only related drill on 9/11 was of one plane hitting one building, the NRO offices. It was nothing to do with a terrorist attack (the NRO offices are close to an airport). And there's no reason to believe the drill had any effect on the response to 9/11.

I do of course have evidence to support this theory...
Let's start with support for your claims on the "Pentagon military drills", then.

[Stellafane]

...Forgive me for being brash, but you seem like Encino Man crawling out of the ground. You might want to check the date on your computer.

For Truthers, it's always September 12, 2001.

[Luntoc]

Conspiracy theories would've surfaced regardless of the government's explanation. It's the way it is. Even I knew they were going to appear and it didn't make a difference if the U.S. was at war right now.

[T.A.M.]

I think we are seeing a (predictable) evolving of the truth movement. See now many of the truthers have realized that their leaders, and many of their theories are not only silly, but also not being taken seriously by 99.9999999% of the world. So what is a desperate truther to do?

I tell you what they are doing....

They have begun to use their "escape clause". You see, when something from the movement (in this case the leaders and many of their theories) fall in disfavor, or no longer gather the attention some feel they deserve, many truthers begin to call said leaders and theories "disinfo". Yes, so now Fetzer, Reynolds, Alex Jones, and others, once heralded as valiant soldiers in the march for truth, are now regarded by many of their minions as "disinfo". People and theories planted by big brother, planted by the NWO, to make the "real" truth seekers look silly.

TAM:)