If you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy...

[mfqr]

I think Maddox puts it in terms that even the dumbest of the dumb can understand.. that there was no conspiracy.

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

I'm not sure how you want people to reply to that. Maddox is saying that Loose Change doesn't prove anything, which is true.

However, that still does not mean that there was no conspiracy.

There is a long history of governments carrying out attacks on their own soil, and blaming it on whoever they want to go to war with, to get support from everyone to go to war with a particular country.

The fact is, there are lots of unanswered questions. Considering the anomalies in the official story, and the unanswered questions... it should be questioned. Why does everyone seem to imply that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are "kooks"?

Here is a credible book on 9/11, backed by lots and lots of careful research. If any of you are interested in reading some research that is backed by real evidence, read this book:

Amazon.com: The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism: Books: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Maybe you can find it as an e-book.

Conspiracy theorists aren't nuts, they're just people looking for the truth. Obviously we don't get that enough, so people take it into their own hands to come up with ideas of what may have happened. Then of course, by questioning authority, they are seen as "kooks" and "idiots." People who blindly believe the official story of 9/11 are the idiots. Let me also say that 9/11 has brought us into a war in two countries already. Let me also reiterate that a government conspiring to attack itself to gain more power or sway people to support a certain agenda, is far from unheard of - 9/11 is not the first time this has happened.
How do you think Hitler took over Germany? That's right, he constructed a terrorist attack on his own country and blamed it on communists. Sound a bit familiar? Maybe very similar? Well, I know what you're going to say already. You're going to say that it does not mean that's what happened on 9/11. Sorry, but the official story does not make sense! It seems like all evidence points to some kind of conspiracy within our government, friends. Whether it be a controlled demolition or not - our government conspired to create and manufacture this terrorism. You cannot deny that our government has completely taken advantage of 9/11 in their favor, not ours! That cannot be denied, everyone knows that.

Read that book, and you can see why this kind of attack is used, and what purpose it serves. I won't go on about the NWO - it looks like not many people here believe in the NWO (eventhough George Bush Sr. did speak of it on national television, but I won't get into that).

Read the book, or die! And yes, I mean that.

[growwatcher]

[...]
However, that still does not mean that there was no conspiracy.

ahh yes, the "you cannot prove me wrong, therefor my theory has validity" argument. Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

There is a long history of governments carrying out attacks on their own soil, and blaming it on whoever they want to go to war with, to get support from everyone to go to war with a particular country.

Now, I realize that many people did believe (at least at first, though there are still plenty around who still do) W et all regarding Iraq's supposed involvement with the 9/11 attacks. But to anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention, it is quite clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

Having said that, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to "carry out attacks on their own soil" in a way that would implicate another country without it being so obvious that what is being stated is false? In other words, wouldn't they have at least tried to make it look like Iraq was responsible, instead of just saying it is so?

Why does everyone seem to imply that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are "kooks"?

Not sure that it is limited to the 9/11 people specifically... Most conspiracy theorists are considered to be at least selective in their interpretations of the available facts.

Conspiracy theorists aren't nuts, they're just people looking for the truth.

I would state it another way. Conspiracy theorists tend to ignore basic facts of what is and is not possible in order to display their own insecurities and mistrust of the world they live in. They come up with wild accusations with no foundation in reality.

I guess that makes people think they're nuts

Then of course, by questioning authority, they are seen as "kooks" and "idiots."

I think you are confusing questioning authority with questioning the explanation for a given event. I question authority all the time. Going to war in Iraq is a prime example of this. It is obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, yet here we are at war.

But in order to say that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, you have to discard a whole lot of evidence about what actually happened. That is where people start getting labeled as kooks.

Let me also say that 9/11 has brought us into a war in two countries already.

Well, W brought us into those wars. He used 9/11 as an excuse to do so, but his efforts were willful, at least as far as Iraq goes. Afghanistan is much more legitimate in my estimation.

Sorry, but the official story does not make sense! It seems like all evidence points to some kind of conspiracy within our government, friends. Whether it be a controlled demolition or not - our government conspired to create and manufacture this terrorism.

Show me something other than badly strung together conjecture, please.

You cannot deny that our government has completely taken advantage of 9/11 in their favor, not ours! That cannot be denied, everyone knows that.

I cannot deny that, my friend.

Read the book, or die! And yes, I mean that.

No, I don't think I will. But thanks.

Grow

[eg420ne]

I didnt know building7 was hit by a plane..............and why would USAma warn the pentagon officials not to fly on 911...just soo many questions, but our good GW hindered any real investigation into 9-11, wonder why?

[HighTillIDie]

please watch the vid in my signature, watch the WHOLE thing

then do your own, actual research

[eg420ne]

You have to be a little crazy to watch 2 planes full of gas ram some buildings and say well. that wasn't the reason they went down. Controlled demolition? should they have just toppled over on there sides of break in half. "Jet fuel burning for two hours, nope dont buy it"......TARDS!!!!!

Yeah if youve watched the planes hit the buildings you'll will notice that most of the fuel burnt up on impact outside the building......but you still have building 7 to deal with, oh my bad the fuel tank blew up inside the building

[HighTillIDie]

some people think it is too far fetched to have conspiracies, and societal control

and they think i am paranoid and crazy for saying, isn't that what they want you to think?

[mfqr]

ahh yes, the "you cannot prove me wrong, therefor my theory has validity" argument. Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

What I said there had nothing to do with saying "you cannot prove me wrong." I said, "that doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy." So I'm not sure how you came up with that response.

Now, I realize that many people did believe (at least at first, though there are still plenty around who still do) W et all regarding Iraq's supposed involvement with the 9/11 attacks. But to anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention, it is quite clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

Right, it is clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks in the sense of us "going there to kill terrorists." You're right. That's what's strange, don't you think? After 9/11 we got into two different wars, with two different countries. Although, the whole thing was marked as the "War on Terror." Operation: Iraqi Freedom is a part of that. In fact, you can prove that to yourself by watching what reasoning George Bush gave to go to Iraq. I can tell you two of them: Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" (which have not been found yet), and he was "harboring terrorists." Of course, there was no proof in any of those given. Now if that wasn't a big lie by George Bush. Of course, with the addition of "terrorists," which is for some reason so much different than it has always been, they can manufacture evidence or lie completely and say that some other country is involved in terrorism somehow. Certainly looks like they're doing that with Iran now, with the WMD story again, and the harboring terrorists story. Not that I'm saying that they don't have WMD's, they might. Or, they will in the future. As far as I know, they're only in the process of creating weapons grade uranium. This means they have no nukes yet, at least not made from their own program.

Having said that, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to "carry out attacks on their own soil" in a way that would implicate another country without it being so obvious that what is being stated is false? In other words, wouldn't they have at least tried to make it look like Iraq was responsible, instead of just saying it is so?

A common argument by people who don't understand the conspiracy theories about it. The idea wasn't to just go into Iraq, my friend. The idea was to go into Afghanistan, and then as you can see, they shifted attention to Iraq with the idea that Iraq harbors terrorists and has nukes. They can use this whole "terrorism" scheme on anything they want. Do you understand this? It's fear-mongering, nothing more. They scare the hell out of us about terrorism, and then they are granted more power. As long as we stay scared of so-called terrorists, they have control. Do you honestly not think that 9/11 lead to the invasion of two countries, and the killing of more innocent people than originally died on 9/11? To me it's pretty obvious, that even if nobody in connection with our country conspired to make 9/11 happen, that it was severely taken advantage of... and not in *our* best interest.

Not sure that it is limited to the 9/11 people specifically... Most conspiracy theorists are considered to be at least selective in their interpretations of the available facts.

And so are many people who don't agree with the conspiracies. I don't believe in all the conspiracies. I'm not sure if there was a controlled demolition, or if there were mini-nukes blasted in the towers, or if it is all shapeshifting lizardmen running the whole scheme, or if there were cloaked black helicopters near WTC on 9/11. The only thing I do believe is that there was some kind of conspiracy. History proves that it is a possibility. And that book I gave you a link to actually proves a lot of things that you would otherwise talk down on.

I would state it another way. Conspiracy theorists tend to ignore basic facts of what is and is not possible in order to display their own insecurities and mistrust of the world they live in. They come up with wild accusations with no foundation in reality.

I guess that makes people think they're nuts

They all do? Please see above. And for the record, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have not come up with my own theories. But I am 100% sure that there was a conspiracy. You just need to do the research, and I think it then becomes very clear.

What I believe is that the US government actually works with al-Qaeda, especially Osama Bin Laden. We actually fund terrorism. If you read the book I posted, you will see why, and how.

I think you are confusing questioning authority with questioning the explanation for a given event. I question authority all the time. Going to war in Iraq is a prime example of this. It is obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, yet here we are at war.

In this case, questioning authority and questioning the explanation that doesn't give all the answers, in a very shady way, is questioning authority. If you did not know, our government (who supplied the official story) is authority. And yes, you're right. We are in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with 9/11 in the sense that Iraq had nothing to do bringing the towers down. Isn't that a bit strange? A bit, right? Just a little bit?

But in order to say that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, you have to discard a whole lot of evidence about what actually happened. That is where people start getting labeled as kooks.

No you don't. People do this, I know that. But you have to realize that the conspiracy that I see to be the most credible is that the US actually funds terrorism. We sent al-Qaeda to do it. In that fashion you don't have to discard any evidence in how the towers fell, or whatever.

I wouldn't call them kooks, but I would say that some people are really creative in how they come up with ways to show that it might have been an inside job. Of course, a lot of these theories end up getting raped. The controlled demolition one still seems to be going strong, however. There's been a lot of supposed "debunks" of that theory, but they never seem to prove that it wasn't. Of course, I'm not saying that it was a controlled demolition. But let's face it, we're never going to get the full truth of how things went down on that day... so let's leave it at that.

Well, W brought us into those wars. He used 9/11 as an excuse to do so, but his efforts were willful, at least as far as Iraq goes. Afghanistan is much more legitimate in my estimation.

I would have to disagree with you on the Afghanistan part. Invading Afghanistan had no legitimacy, because there was never proof that our so-called "enemy" was actually there. They just said they were, and used that to go there. Neither of the wars have any legitimate reasons. In fact, war itself is very hard to legitimize.

Show me something other than badly strung together conjecture, please.

Perhaps you can read that book.

I cannot deny that, my friend.

Neither can I, my friend.

No, I don't think I will. But thanks.

Talk about being selective. I thought conspiracy theorist nuts were the only ones who didn't look at the other side? I guess you were wrong.

[audioaddict04]

Having said that, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to "carry out attacks on their own soil" in a way that would implicate another country without it being so obvious that what is being stated is false? In other words, wouldn't they have at least tried to make it look like Iraq was responsible, instead of just saying it is so?

Have you ever thought of becoming a lawyer? You argued your point fantastically.

[eg420ne]

No cause they needed a boogie man for all time..saddams dead he cant hurt anyone, but uncle USAma is still frozen err i mean still out-there with his alCIAduh which as no known country of its own.....so they(US Government) can continued to fear-mogger the US citizens



.

[HighTillIDie]

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV (arrows)