9/11 Truthers

UncleBob

UncleBob

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I'm sure just about every poster here has seen/read at least one of the many, many theories about the events of 9/11 and how they really happened.

Now, there's some nutter stuff out there - and there's some stuff that, at least a little bit, makes you go 'hmmmm....'

So, simple question - Do you think there is a significant difference between the official public record of the events leading up to and of 9/11 and what actually occurred?

Now, I'm not asking if you think Bush and the Jews teamed up to implode the World Trade Center with planted explosives (although if you do think that, your answer would be 'yes'). And I'm not asking if you think one of the hijackers of the first plane to crash was wearing a yellow shirt instead of the reported red shirt (I just made that up as an example, but if you believed something like that, your answer would be 'no'). The key word here is 'significant'.

I promise I'll do my best to keep this off the subject of "How can you trust the government" - but I'm really just curious as to what most people here believe.

I've been fumbling around with this, trying to keep the choices pretty general, but not overly so. I hope the three I decided on pretty fairly covers all the basis.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes.[/QUOTE]

Sorry - the poll is now up. Apparently, there's a pretty small character limit for the question field though...

Sorry for the spelling errors in the poll. I was in a rush to get it posted with the thread and spent too much time trying to trim down the question (before deciding to give up), I didn't go back and double check what I typed...
 
I laugh at the idea Bush arranged 9/11 and faked everything about the pre-Iraqi War intelligence. People say that in the breath they talk about how stupid he was (personally, I think it was less stupid and more brain damage from cocaine ;)). I honestly don't think Bush could have arranged all of this - he's no President Logan, that's for sure.
 
Hitchens argues that 'Bush is stupid' jokes are for stupid people now. Only stupid people laugh at that joke.

I'm wondering if anyone is ever going to make that same argument about 'Palin is stupid' jokes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I laugh at the idea Bush arranged 9/11 and faked everything about the pre-Iraqi War intelligence. People say that in the breath they talk about how stupid he was (personally, I think it was less stupid and more brain damage from cocaine ;)). I honestly don't think Bush could have arranged all of this - he's no President Logan, that's for sure.[/QUOTE]
Who is President Logan?
 
Like Cheney's actually going to tell the truth about 9/11. The government had a way to find terrorists back then, but they didn't bother to use it.
But I slightly believe the truthers more than the birthers.:)
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Who is President Logan?[/QUOTE]

Preisdent Charles Logan

[quote name='AndrewsAwesome4']wow there a lot of people who think the Gov. was up to it , awesome !![/QUOTE]

Now, the way I worded that is rather vague - on purpose. It doesn't mean the government was behind the events, pulling the strings all the way, shooting missiles at the Pentagon. It could mean that, say, the government had advance notice of the events but failed to react, allowing them to happen (similar to some Pearl Harbor theories) as a pretext for war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the 9/11 commission is probably pretty accurate personally. I'm sure there are lots of details missing about what they knew from intelligence before the attack etc. But not enough that I'd say I feel there's a "significant" difference. Much less to buy into any of the tin foil hat truther nonsense.
 
[quote name='AndrewsAwesome4']wow there a lot of people who think the Gov. was up to it , awesome !![/QUOTE]

No one thinks this. No one smart, anyway.

Go troll the 360 some more.
 
The government likes to keep people distracted and arguing. 9/11 is a great example.

#1 The cockpit recorders.
The only one ever found was hundreds of miles away from the larger crime scene. Well, people on the scene claimed to have found them, but the FBI told them to shut up. Would the cockpit recorders prove it was a government conspiracy? Probably not, but, by God, that sure is suspicious when you're not allowed to hear what happened.

#2 The steel from the building.
A lot of the steel was fenced and destroyed and damn near none of it was analyzed. That steel could have been tested for explosives. The steel could have been looked at to see if it bent and broke or if it was melted. Would the steel prove it was a government conspiracy? Probably not, but, by God, that sure is suspicious when you're not allowed to examine the "body" at a crime scene.

#3 Building 7.
Anybody who claims it is just obvious that the twin towers collapsed because a plane struck each one starts to st-st-stammer when you mention little old Building 7. The BBC reported WTC7 collapsed about 30 minutes early and conveniently destroyed the tape by accident. When I discuss it with somebody, I'll usually quote the report verbatim and that somebody will claim I'm lying because I tend to bullshit. Then, I show them the report online and they shake their heads in disbelief. Does a crappy report based on guesses and computer models prove a conspiracy? Probably not, but, by God, that sure is suspicious when the official explanation is such a poor one.

Do you want to know another great example of the government keeping people distracted and arguing? Obamacare. While our "representatives" were "debating" whether or not to reform health care, they all agreed to keep spending the same amount in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, critial isn't a real word. Are you going for critical or crucial?
 
Meant to use Critical - one of the two errors up there (the other being 'offical'). Apparently, there's no way to edit polls once they're posted (which, I suppose, could be a good thing...)
 
[quote name='Strell']No one thinks this. No one smart, anyway.

Go troll the 360 some more.[/QUOTE]

First thing you have said that I agree with...
 
The president has no power so people please stop thinking about Bush or Cheney. This is a trap, magicians use this same technique. As long as you continue to think and argue about the wrong things you will never find the true answer. These men are merely political puppets, they are the face of the corporation, they are trusty salesmen who pitch the idea to the extremely intelligent masses.

The occulted are everywhere.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think the 9/11 commission is probably pretty accurate personally. I'm sure there are lots of details missing about what they knew from intelligence before the attack etc. But not enough that I'd say I feel there's a "significant" difference. Much less to buy into any of the tin foil hat truther nonsense.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LJXoXpAHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySAzyi8ivqA


Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,
“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”
​
Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,
“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
​
In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,
“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”
​
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.
“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.
​
Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,
“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”
​
 
[quote name='Archfiend']The president has no power so people please stop thinking about Bush or Cheney. This is a trap, magicians use this same technique. As long as you continue to think and argue about the wrong things you will never find the true answer. These men are merely political puppets, they are the face of the corporation, they are trusty salesmen who pitch the idea to the extremely intelligent masses.

The occulted are everywhere.[/QUOTE]

If this were true then we would not be pulling out of Iraq so quickly, and Afghanistan in a year. It is not a coincidence or puppetry that Obamas policy on this fell in line with these "higher powers" you speak of.

It is true however that the government is a giant bureacracy that has many layers and functions, and alot of decisions are not made by the President because they are beneath him.
He cannot make all decisions all the time, and you are distorting this fact to make it seem as though these people act without authorization by the office of the President, or Congress.

Also those videos you showed mean nothing. Any object projected through the air can be defined as a missile for one. And two, what do you think the thousands of gallons of jet fuel would be called seeing as how they are explosive.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And two, what do you think the thousands of gallons of jet fuel would be called seeing as how they are explosive.[/QUOTE]

I would argue jet fuel is flammable and not explosive in and of itself.
 
princessFrogReaction2.png
 
[quote name='Knoell']If this were true then we would not be pulling out of Iraq so quickly, and Afghanistan in a year. It is not a coincidence or puppetry that Obamas policy on this fell in line with these "higher powers" you speak of.

It is true however that the government is a giant bureacracy that has many layers and functions, and alot of decisions are not made by the President because they are beneath him.
He cannot make all decisions all the time, and you are distorting this fact to make it seem as though these people act without authorization by the office of the President, or Congress.

Also those videos you showed mean nothing. Any object projected through the air can be defined as a missile for one. And two, what do you think the thousands of gallons of jet fuel would be called seeing as how they are explosive.[/QUOTE]


Until we actually pull out of Afganistan and Iraq his promises mean nothing. It doesn't matter we will be at war with Iran by then. And by thinking that the president/congress have the highest power in the land just means you do not understand the way the world really works. History is a wonderful thing to learn, search and you will find.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

#3 Building 7.
Anybody who claims it is just obvious that the twin towers collapsed because a plane struck each one starts to st-st-stammer when you mention little old Building 7. The BBC reported WTC7 collapsed about 30 minutes early and conveniently destroyed the tape by accident. When I discuss it with somebody, I'll usually quote the report verbatim and that somebody will claim I'm lying because I tend to bullshit. Then, I show them the report online and they shake their heads in disbelief. Does a crappy report based on guesses and computer models prove a conspiracy? Probably not, but, by God, that sure is suspicious when the official explanation is such a poor one.
[/QUOTE]

out of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories this is the one that i cant help but be VERY skeptical about. everything surrounding building 7 is so shady.
 
I've read and watched an awful lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff, because, you know, I'm into that shit.

I have only concluded that there are more questions than answers, but there is not enough evidence of outright conspiracy by anyone in particular to go all Charles Bronson.

Just because something smells fishy, it does not prove that a kraken had been by recently taking a piss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top