That was a serious response. That particular article is actually quite well sourced.

But the bigger picture here:

1) This makes zero sense as a conspiracy. The most common motive cited is "wag the dog", but even someone pushed to an extreme would have to see the obvious problems in that. The fallout did just as much to bolster anti-war positions as pro-war ones, the economic losses were severe (a major concern if low defense budgets were any kind of motive), and it also emboldened the enemies of the US far more than it stoked the fires of indignation. All of those were easily foreseeable. Maybe you could get a few people extreme enough in their beliefs to overlook the obvious, but not hundreds, and it'd take hundreds to pull this off.

2) No group of people in the history of the world has demonstrated the hyper-competence to pull off a deception on that level, let alone keep it going for so long. Stuff like this is a Rube Goldberg machine: too many moving parts, too many ways for things to go wrong that obviously didn't. And such competence is completely at odds with the sheer stupidity it'd take (see (1)) to think it'd be a good idea in the first place. Alternatively, you could suggest that maybe the unwanted consequences were always intended to be mitigated by some other part of the plan, but it makes just as little sense that anyone would succeed in the hard part but not the rest.

3) Due to the number of people who would have to be involved, it'd be impossible to not only ensure silence on the part of all of them, but to keep them all dedicated to the Cause (whatever it would have been) without serious doubts. Someone would have blown the whistle, if not before then not long after.

4) Laying down the alleged explosives would have taken a lot of time and had to be done in working buildings. An uptick in maintenance workers (the only viable cover) in the weeks leading up to the attack would have been well documented, and would have produced an obvious paper trail. Also: who would do it? Most of the guys with the proper training are soldiers--who are far more concerned with saving civilian lives, especially their fellow countrymen, and most of whom would be deeply opposed to sacrificing innocents for a political objective. There may be some psychos around, but spec-ops doesn't really like keeping them on for obvious reasons. Then you have criminals, who are loose cannons at best.

5) Why blow up the towers when planes hitting them would have been enough? Planes obviously did hit them, and we know who hijacked those planes. Known. Proven. Beyond doubt. Putting aside all else, wouldn't it have been easier--and harder to trace--for a conspiracy to silently funnel money, plans, and encouragement to a radical group who already wanted to pull off a bit of jihad theater? Anyone who's stupid enough to think destroying their own country's building for political ends is a good idea, would still at least prefer to let someone else do the dirty work and keep their own fingerprints out of it as much as possible. The full destruction of the towers was not necessary to achieve those ends, and it'd be easy to maneuver terrorists into position--as patsies--with only a handful of people instead of the many more it would take to stage a demolition. In other words, the motives ascribed to the supposed conspiricists are ludicrously childish, but the plan they supposedly went with is ludicrously more convoluted than it would have had to be.

If 9/11 were an inside job, mountains of evidence should exist that do not; but mountains of evidence do exist to the contrary. If someone wanted to use an attack to beef up defense budgets, 1) that's really stupid even for the government (but not for Hollywood, who adored that trope in the '90s), and 2) there were thousands of easier options with better risk/reward ratios and fewer moving parts, which even a great fool would have pursued first instead of taking the Wile E. Coyote approach.

@Lummox: We've lost Xooxer. Once you go this far fringe, there's no coming back. Logic is abandoned in favor of his ideological opponents simply being stupid and/or brainwashed idiots. Conspiracy theorists like to explain your thoughts using psychology and their own thoughts with logic.

There's no win scenario. I gave up debating with the guy when we had a debate about Sasquatch and he became openly hostile when exposed to reason.

These days, I just sadly lament the once great BYONDer that we have lost to paranoia.

However, on topic, I am compelled to say that there are obvious lies that the government has told regarding that day. We were also manipulated into going into war with Iraq using this incident, and we were lied to about what was actually going on in Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan were a staging ground for dealing with the Iran problem.

But overall, yeah, the idea that we did a controlled demolition to justify the invasion of two countries is absurd. We didn't need that justification to destabilize and invade Iran in the 80s, we didn't need it to deal with central and south American countries in the 90s, and we didn't need it to invade Vietnam in the 70s. Politics and jingoism alone could have been used easily to mislead the American people into yet another war.

Lummox JR wrote:

That was a serious response. That particular article is actually quite well sourced.

To bad it was written on humor website, huh?

But the bigger picture here:

1) This makes zero sense as a conspiracy.

Says you.

2) No group of people in the history of the world has demonstrated the hyper-competence to pull off a deception on that level, let alone keep it going for so long.

Says you.

3) Due to the number of people who would have to be involved,

Please do tell, how many people would it take?

4) Laying down the alleged explosives would have taken a lot of time and had to be done in working buildings.

You do know, that's exactly what happened, right?

An uptick in maintenance workers (the only viable cover) in the weeks leading up to the attack would have been well documented,

It *is* documented.

and would have produced an obvious paper trail.

Unless that paper was inside the buildings.

Also: who would do it?

Good question. Ask Silverman who he had "renovating" in the buildings before 9/11.

Most of the guys with the proper training are soldiers--who are far more concerned with saving civilian lives,

Soldiers are only concerned with doing what their told. Everything else is an effect of that fact. Also, no. Soldiers aren't the only ones who know how to wire a building.

especially their fellow countrymen,

Who said the job was done by our countrymen? Oh right, you.

and most of whom would be deeply opposed to sacrificing innocents for a political objective. There may be some psychos around, but spec-ops doesn't really like keeping them on for obvious reasons. Then you have criminals, who are loose cannons at best.

Bla bla bla.

5) Why blow up the towers when planes hitting them would have been enough?

Enough for what?

Planes obviously did hit them, and we know who hijacked those planes. Known. Proven. Beyond doubt.

Please provide that "proven" proof. How did we know?

Putting aside all else, wouldn't it have been easier--and harder to trace--for a conspiracy to silently funnel money, plans, and encouragement to a radical group who already wanted to pull off a bit of jihad theater?

When they need someone to design the next atrocity, be sure to give them your number.

Anyone who's stupid enough to think destroying their own country's building for political ends is a good idea, would still at least prefer to let someone else do the dirty work and keep their own fingerprints out of it as much as possible.

Like Hitler and the Riechstag fire? Stupid? He didn't win the war, but the fire damn sure worked.

The full destruction of the towers was not necessary to achieve those ends,

What ends?

and it'd be easy to maneuver terrorists into position--as patsies--with only a handful of people instead of the many more it would take to stage a demolition.

Have you had experience in corralling terrorists?

In other words, the motives ascribed to the supposed conspiricists are ludicrously childish, but the plan they supposedly went with is ludicrously more convoluted than it would have had to be.

What motives?

If 9/11 were an inside job, mountains of evidence should exist that do not;

They were trucked away and melted down, or tossed into the ocean.

but mountains of evidence do exist to the contrary.

You have yet to cite any.

If someone wanted to use an attack to beef up defense budgets, 1) that's really stupid even for the government (but not for Hollywood, who adored that trope in the '90s), and 2) there were thousands of easier options with better risk/reward ratios and fewer moving parts, which even a great fool would have pursued first instead of taking the Wile E. Coyote approach.

Bla bla bla...


So you guys are still making straw man arguments. Can't be bothered to answer a question without putting up a question that you can answer.

Rocknet wrote:

I'm trying to follow this thread, and I can't get this single question out of my head.. "Why does this matter, and why was this 'suddenly' posted on the forums?"

It was a long time ago for some, but only yesterday to others. This topic will never die until we get some straight answers.

It matters, because 9/11 is being used as The Excuse, just like Hitler used the Riechstag fire as The Excuse, and that's a bad. Ask the Jews why it matters. Ask the Poles. Ask France.