The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are getting too stupid, too widespread and far too pervasive. In their frantic dash to prove the complicity of the Neo-Cons, the 9/11 Truth Movement has given the Bush administration exactly what it wanted in the first place: a population mired in minutiae and utterly convinced of its own impotence.
The Call to Adventure
I've been avoiding this issue, if the truth be told, for months now. I started dabbling with the 9/11 conspiracy theories that have been evolving this last two or three years, a few months back, by listening to podcasts, reading articles and yes, watching the movie Loose Change - the home-made student film on 9/11 which sits at the very centre of most of the recent conspiracy theories.
Whilst you have to admire the ingenuity of those responsible for the movie, you also feel forced to point out that this is, for some, a movie so patently ridiculous in its claims, so hysterical in its tone, so desperate to find evidence to fit its theory that one exasperated blogger recently likened watching it to being 'bukakked with stupid'.
However, George Monbiot, as always, writing into today's Guardian, puts it slightly better:
'To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it [the Bush regime] is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse.
It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.
Well said Sir.
Refusal of the Call
Now, wait. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Before we get ourselves dragged back into yet more arguments about 'what plane did what at what time', I'd like to suggest that an issue far worthier of discussion is the basic matter of why these conspiracy theories exist at all. Why has there been such an enormous ground-swell of venomous, almost religious fervour which demands that we now accept 9/11 as an inside job? What do these stories do? What's their function?
A couple of weeks ago, I was sitting at home listening to the James Whale show on Talksport Radio in London. I generally try not to listen to his show too much (it makes me vaguely ill), but this particular evening David Icke was on.
Now David Icke is a fascinating character. He's charming, he's witty and he's articulate. But he's also deeply paranoid. There's a job-lot of references to 'they' and not a lot on who 'they' actually are.
He sees shadowy government agents at every turn - that's right, anyone wearing a yellow jacket (parking attendant, cop, security guard or just anyone that ever tells David to do anything) is a government agent. Even if they don't know it themselves. The Illuminati haunt almost every utterance and nothing is ordinary. Everything is extraordinary.
But there's nothing there. I'm sorry, there just isn't. There's nothing. Nothing. No evidence. No documents. No learned testimony. No verifiable facts. And whilst would-be Forteans such as ourselves here at Blather.net are supposed to remain impartial and seek a condition of 'negative capability', there are occasions when the sheer critical mass of acceptable stupidity and the ease with which so many are buying into this half-assed, hysterical, unverifiable conjecture as though it were fact, simply becomes too much to bear. And, it is no different when it comes to 9/11.
Crossing the First Threshold
Now, conspiracy theories and theorists fascinate me. They're usually passionate, articulate and persuasive people. Their devotion to their studies brings out that most wonderful of human aspects which Ian Fleming once described (in the novel 'Goldfinger') as the singular joy you get when you are by being taught a new subject by an expert in that field.
I'm also fascinated by the belief-systems at work. The 'storytelling' that goes into creating a conspiracy and what we can learn about ourselves by looking at the mechanics of that story. Some suggest that the words we use shape the way we see the world. And conspiracy theory, whether genuine investigative journalism or thrashy Sky News text-poll snap judgements, creates quite a world.
The Belly of the Whale
For me though, the only 'truth' in all of this, is that conspiracy theorists are searching for meaning in chaos. The problem is that sometimes, there is no meaning. There's just chaos. Meteorites fall from the sky every day. People get cancer. Bad shit happens. All the time.
The Road of Trials
To stick with Icke for a second, I'm sorry, but I have a problem with accepting an army of Lizards are responsible for 9/11 and every other significant political event on our planet. Sometimes there's just chaos. And there's nothing you can do about it. Elvis left the building a long time ago. That UFO you saw? Be honest, it was probably a Chinese lamp.
For me Icke's insistence that we have no free choice, that every event in our lives is dictated by a nefarious, unseen cabal of illuminati, is in itself, the ultimate fascism: the rabid, never-ending insistence that we have no choice.
And it's the same for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The subject is different (but related) but uses the same 'with us or agsint us rhetoric' which is so similar to that of the Regime which is seeks to depose.
Some, in their quasi-messianic zeal to prove that Bush and the Neo-Cons orchestrated 9/11, have done such a good job of convincing their audience of the sheer scale of the conspiracy, that they have done a rather excellent job of convincing them of their political impotence.
Am I the only one who thinks that some conspiracy theorists are trying to fill a God-shaped hole with sinister organisations that simply don't exist?
The Meeting with the Goddess
Our world needs no Illuminati. It needs no saucer people who live below the polar caps. It needs no race of super-human, blood-drinking mole-people to govern us like serfs. We have the UN Security Council to do that for us.
You want to investigate something? Get over to Greg Palast's site and investigate how it is that the Republicans stole an entire election. Find out where the Enron money went. Ask why it is that the Japanese government are hell-bent on killing over 900 whales for 'scientific study'.
To take a local example, when the IRA bombed Warrington and Manchester, Canary Wharf and Remembrance Day parades, no-one looked to blame the British Government for organising these atrocities - even though it can be argued that the terrorist campaign gave the government powers it could never have hoped for in peace time. You know why? Because the British people were used to it. The British People knew what they were dealing with - terrorists. That is, men and women who kill without remorse, who don't care how many die and who, certainly in the case of Al Qaeda anyway, actually revel in the death toll.
Atonement with the Father
America has no cultural experience of this. No lens through which to understand events such as this. Having never been invaded or carpet-bombed, never suffered the real ravages of terrorism and having exported its war across the globe, many citizens of the United States are bereft of the 'language' with which they can make sense of the sheer scale of what 9/11 was.
And perhaps, ultimately the real problem is just that: the sheer scale of the event. It was so spectacular, so 'bad Hollywood movie', that almost immediately people start rooting around for the 24-like grand-plan, when in actual fact it's far more likely that 9/11 was the result of the work of a bunch of evil, scheming religious zealots who despise America and every thing that it stands for. There's nowhere near as many of them as you've been told there is and they ain't that hard to find: just go to the poorest places on earth.
Now don't get us wrong: we are under no illusion as to what kind of people Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of that shower are. Yes, 9/11 helped them. Yes, it was convenient. But only because the people of America allowed it to be so. It was not engineered by the CIA or even by Bin Laden, or indeed by the 'Project for a New American Century'. It was organised by a loosely-connected group of religious fundamentalists - the majority of whom all came from one of America's closest 'allies'. Ask about that before you start screaming for Iran's invasion.
The Ultimate Boon
It's time to up the game. Time to get better. Time to write better blogs, make better movies and ask better questions. We're sorry, but Loose Change and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are just not doing that right now.
Yes, there are aspects of 9/11 that are troubling. The 28 missing pages are a serious issue. But to buy in completely, well, let me go back to George:
In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.
Anyone wishing to post links or comments which provide information on the 9/11 Truth movement can do so in the comments section below. Thanks for reading.
You must be joking. That BBC 2 hit piece only covered practically the worst and least credible of all the 9/11 Truth Movement's theories. What about the mysterious sulfidation of the WTC steel or the molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings? THAT is evidence, not some blathering about the movement being some kind of religious cult. As for Loose Change, the final cut will be released, I believe, this summer -- and it will cover only the facts!
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II at February 21, 2007 8:33 PM
If you've been wising up on this for a couple of months, you'll be able to tell me how WTC7 came down.
Posted by: m kirkman at February 21, 2007 9:04 PM
Is that a trick question? Regardless the answer is simple: Controlled Demolition.
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II at February 21, 2007 10:23 PM
We could go round in circles all day.
As far as I'm concerned it's been explained to my satisfaction.
I've seen Loose Change and the guys from Popular Mechanics make Dylan Avery look rather silly.
"Loose Change, the final cut will be released, I believe, this summer -- and it will cover only the facts!"
I think you mean it will cover only truth - 'cause facts and truth are, for the most part, 2 completely different animals. 1 fact can derive many separate truths - it all comes down to perception and what we choose to believe.
Posted by: Amber at February 22, 2007 2:09 PM
One of the things that stick with me, specifically concerning Flight 93, is that I have yet to complete a cell phone call from a airliner, except when on the ground or approach. I have tried many times and have spoken to many people who have tried and failed. It is a loose thread that won't go away and opens a set of questions.
Posted by: Humpydog at February 22, 2007 3:12 PM
Let us use science and remove the emotional aspects of this debate. Steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. Hydrocarbon fires in open air burn at a maximum of 1517 degrees Fahrenheit. How then did the steel melt? Why were pools of molten steel present at ground zero weeks after 9-11? I challenge anyone to answer this.
Posted by: Elijah at February 22, 2007 11:40 PM
ummm... not being a scientist - but I am guessing that the buildings contained all kinds of fun and combustible chemicals/materials etc. Plus - wouldn't a fire continue to grow hotter as it burns more and more - bringing the temperature up. Why is it so hard to believe that we were the victims of a terrorist attack? Are we so invincible that it *had* to be an inside job? Not everyone in the world loves Americans - based on a multitude of blogs, sites, books etc etc I thought that at least would be obvious.
Anywho, despite how much this is analyzed, turned inside out, upside down and spanked - we will absolutely 100% never know, without a doubt, who/what caused it. Crikey, we couldn't even prove whether or not O.J. did it - how can we know this?
Posted by: Amber at February 23, 2007 2:36 PM
"Anywho, despite how much this is analyzed, turned inside out, upside down and spanked - we will absolutely 100% never know, without a doubt, who/what caused it."
Nevertheless, we still need a new truly independent investigation. And come hell or high water, as a devoted 9/11 Truther, I promise you that we WILL get one!
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II at February 23, 2007 10:34 PM
There is more to all this than meets the eye, surely we can all agree on that.
The problem is, of course, the in-fighting brought about with the theories.
Bottom line is there is an US against THEM and it's high time we quit taking the lazy way out by blaming it on coincidence and figure out why we've let this happen and get busy on the solution!
For a little inspiration, feel free to check out my video on YouTube, 'Going Crazy'. Here's the link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfLRpC7p1E8
See ya when we get there!
Posted by: Lelabear at February 24, 2007 6:25 AM
It is you the one who DON"T WANT TO FACE REALITY.
* Why would Julianni makes millions with 911 and ship all the evidence over seas to destruction???
* WHy GEORGE BUSH's BROATHER MARVIN BUSH was running security for the WTC COMPLEX??? and didn't allow dogs that smells bombs on the building weeks before the attack??????
* WHY WTC7 collapsed?
* Why fema were running a drill the same week of 911?
* How would an amature pilot hit a building with NO INSTRUMENTS??? remote control
* Why did fire fighter reported SECONDARY EXPLOSIVE DIVECE when inside the buildings???
* How would fuel that burns at 1800 degrees melt steal frames whitch mealting temperature is 2500 degrees?
* Why did the reported said there were no sing of airplane on petagon?
* How come rumsfield said: The plane we shot in pensylvania?
Running from the truth will not fix it sunshine. WILL NOT FIX IT.
Posted by: Alchemis at February 24, 2007 9:53 AM
anyone with half a brain and an open mind can see those buildings fell with demolitions.Science tells us that in order for those buildings to fall that fast the floors below the falling debris had to be demolished as it came down. There was no resistance in the fall. The fall took 10 seconds, exactly the time it takes an object to free fall from the top of the WTC. If they would have come down in pancake fashion, like we were told by the offical story, it would have taken over 1 minute for the buildings to fall. Simple science tells us that the offical story is a lie. Watch 911 mysteries on google video for a non-political approach to the science behind it, and you will see 100's of points that are too much for the non brainwashed public to keep believing the offical story.....WAKE UP AMERICA YOU ARE SHEEPLE
Posted by: jrw` at February 24, 2007 6:23 PM
"Science tells us..."
jrw, did you realize that you haven't quoted any scientist?
You're just repeating 9/11 conspiracy nonsense debunked years ago, not having a clue that that the world's scientists are laughing at you.
I could only read to "For me Icke's insistence that we have no free choice...."
I had to stop right there because obviously you have picked something up very wrong.
Now, I don't believe everything Icke says, certainly not about lizards.
However, in 1998 and again in January 2001, Icke predicted the kind of crap that was happening and is still happening today. I would advise you actually try to find out about what he thinks rather than trying to spin what he says.
Oh, so you are capable of linking to his site, are you? Kudos.
observation of gravity tells us that an object falls at 10 ft per second squared...so i dont need to quote any scientists this is fact, and any scientist worth his slide rule wouldnt laugh at the fact that we are being lied to. those buildings came down in free fall...... do some research for yourself dont take my word for it. and if you still believe the offical story after looking in to it then either.. a. youre a complete idiot uncapable of grasping simple logic and physics, or b. you are part of the propaganda that promotes the lies we are being told. by the way 100's of promenent scientists HAVE spoken out against the comissions offical report and have challenged the authors to debate their points and use of impossible physical laws that had to take place in order for the WTC to come down in the fashion they told us it. They never did answer and never will debate the report, do you know why? because its impossible to prove a lie. if you try to debate with anybody they say "oh well just read the report" and then you say "ok what about this this and this"
and then they say "well read the report again" you will never get a real intelligent debate about the commision report because none of the authors of that story can defend it.
YOU CANNOT PROVE A LIE.
we can prove the truth with simple science. an object in free fall is affected by gravity at 10ft per second squared. the towers fell
at that same rate, unaffected by all the steel and concrete below it
Use your brain and dont let it be washed by the propaganda
by the way this is just one of 100's of points that will open your eyes to the truth watch 9/11 mysteries for a good unpolitical scientific approach to understanding what happened that day
, oh and by the way tmskeptic this movie was made by a software engineer who makes software specifically for steel cutting and how steel reacts in streesful situations.
He made the movie in response to another guy who came out saying 9/11 was a cover-up. He got so mad at the movie that he spent months doing research to disprove this movie. In the process of trying to prove the 9/11 offical story, he disproved it.
So, before your brainwashed mind responds back do some research and watch the movie, and then we will all know if you are an idiot or an accomplice.
Posted by: jrw` at February 25, 2007 12:49 AM
If you think about it conspiracy theories are really an example of grassroots democracy. If enough people listen to the evidence and decide they want an investigation it will happen eventually. That means the investigation will happen no matter how ridiculous you (the author) may think this is. This is a movement that is growing and growing. It will surface and you will have it in your face whether you like it or not.
Democracy is not about pleasing all people, but doing the will of the most people. You can write your articles from a point of view that your opinion is paramount all you want. Opinion is just that, opinion. Yours is only one small (and seemingly uneducated) opinion, the 9/11 truth movement is about facts. I didn't see you discuss any evidence in your article. If the movement is so ridiculous what evidence is it that you have discredited? Until you can confront the evidence Democracy will prevail. Just give it some time.
Posted by: Bob Kaboli at February 26, 2007 11:00 AM
Usual straw man that puts razzle-dazzle in front of you to distract you away from the facts.
Posted by: Jbus at February 26, 2007 10:48 PM
Poor jrw, just another 9/11 denier gullible newbie who never learned to think, full of assertions debunked years ago, clueless as to the nature of reality, and willing to follow the 9/11 denial movement into a oblivion.
If you only had a clue, jrw, how utterly stupid you are.
Posted by: tmskeptic at February 27, 2007 1:43 PM
You want facts? Apply the LAW -- not the THEORY -- of Conservation of Momentum to the collapse of the towers and see what you get.
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II at February 27, 2007 3:45 PM
damien here wot wrote the thing. been away for a few days and i'm just catching up with all the comments and mails concerning this piece. my thanks to all of you who sent them in and posted to the site - even if we entirely disagree.
it's great when a blather piece stimulates this much debate and passion and i do understand that this is a highly emotive issue.
however, i would ask that we refrain from insults. i'm sure we can all agree that we have a mutual interest in 'the truth', whatever the hell that is and that slagging each other off is counter-productive. i think a proper debate of the issues is far more edifying.
anyway. nice reading everything everyone has to say. thanks again.
Posted by: damien at February 27, 2007 10:31 PM
"Apply the LAW -- not the THEORY -- of Conservation of Momentum to the collapse of the towers and see what you get."
You mean you cannot tell us yourself?
Posted by: tmskeptic at February 28, 2007 12:31 PM
The 'truth movement' followers should check out the real conspiracy:
I wouldn't say that Americans have no experience of this sort of thing -- they've had more presidents shot or shot at than most western states. So I think it's fair to say that they have experience with shock public events involving an "attack against the nation" or whatever 9/11 is called.
What interests me more about these 9/11 and JFK Kool-Aid drinking types, is that you hardly ever hear them talk about Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination in the same way.
I've never heard any plausible direct motive for a CIA job on JFK or the Twin Towers. King's timely assassination is another matter...
It's true. People do make up conspiracy theories because it's like an unfolding episode of CSI. It is also true that the very substance of government the 9/11 Truth Movement guys hate they are becoming. But it's true that Icke is very intelligent and has great things to say but for fuck sake, shape-shifting reptiles........
Posted by: Davitt at March 9, 2007 7:31 AM
Even though I find your argument very insightful, I strongly disagree with your assumption that the U.S. government had no involvement in the terror attacks of September 11. How could you assume this after witnessing all the extensive measures taken by the government to cover their tracks. Omitting 28 pages from the official 9/11 Commission Report is a clear sign of a government with something to hide. Companies funded by the government firing anyone who speaks out against the official story is a clear sign of a government with something to hide. And the fact that you base all of your assumptions on the fact that there is no "evidence" of foul play is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to assume that this government is incapable of making evidence disappear. It is very logical to assume that one of the greatest countries in the world is very capable of destroying incriminating information. Therefore, I think you and people like you are ignoring the signs because you feel that if you question the government then it makes you less of an American. It doesn't make you less of an American to think for yourself and see past the government sanctioned media and reports. Just think logically. Never in the history of man has a steel framed building collapsed from fire. Yet the government expects us to believe that September 11 was the first time in history fire completely destroyed a steel building. And when I say completely, I mean completely. Ground zero looked like a demolition site. Two 110-story steel building reduced, in ten seconds, to rubble eight feet high tall. EIGHT FEET!!! So basically a fire that maybe reached five floors destroyed a steel framed 110-story building in less than two hours. Does that make sense to you? I don't see how it could. Is it a coincidence that ALL THREE WTC's fell exactly in about ten second, the exact speed of free fall. I think not. There are many questions that this government has left unanswered but until this country decides to, as a whole, take a stand against corruption we will never get the answers we ALL deserve.
Posted by: Besos at March 9, 2007 3:00 PM
Besos, thanks for your comments. Just one thing I should make clear: I'm not an American. I'm an Irishman living in London.
Posted by: damien at March 9, 2007 3:07 PM
It seems to me that those who deny that there is any fishy about the official explanation of 9/11 use a very similar style of argument to those who deny humans are responsible for climate change. Tmskeptic's comments are typical, reiterating that the offered evidence has been debunked as if this proves something, without offering any counter-evidence or even counter-argument.
I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that believing there is a cover-up of the truth of 9/11 leads to a belief in political powerlessness. I'm sorry I just don't see the connection. As for your comments about David Icke, please. No, I don't think the Bush family are reptiles either but having some wacky theories doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. Nor does it prove that everyone who shares SOME of his beliefs are wrong.
If anyone can explain to me why the third tower, which was NOT hit by a place, collapsed on the same day, in exactly the same way as the other two, then I might be more willing to believe in the official story.
People make the mistake of looking for active conspiracies, when it is more likely we are dealing with passive conspiracies.
Say what? Well, the key word about 9/11 and what followed, as said above, is "convenient". Persons in a passive conspiracy don't have to push, quite the opposite. They exercise infinite patience, because they also know that bad things happen, all the time, and if they want to enact some plan small or large, all they have to do is wait. Sooner or later, a Bad Thing will happen that gives them the opportunity they need.
Consider the Patriot Act. It was prepared in record time, almost as if it were sitting in a cabinet somewhere, waiting for its time to come. Did those who wrote it (or caused it to be written, for their benefit) cause 9/11? I highly doubt it, because they did not have to cause it. They only need wait for it to arrive. I'm sure the event itself was beyond even their expectations.
(Ugh, I'm saying "they" a lot. Shall I call Mr. Icke?)
Posted by: Shaun at May 11, 2007 5:22 PM
I loved the 'bukakked with stupid', I am on the fence, lots of fishy things going on but I cant really buy that it was Bush or the CIA etc. too hard to keep it quiet. Maybe it was the Russians or Aliens, jews maybe. It did look like a demolition though.
Posted by: Jam mac Jam at July 10, 2007 11:32 PM
I've read a lot of interesting comments on this page and think that many of you have valid points. I want to gear this comment towards those of you who are currently on the fence about this issue. Some of you may believe that there is a problem with the hole in the Pentagon building or think that the falling of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition. To believe these things, you automatically have to make the assumption that terrorists were not responsible for the attacks on September 11th. You have to infer that the government was behind all of it and that they were responsible and capable of killing 3,000 American citizens. I, however, cannot and will not accept this theory. I do not believe that a government founded on unity, freedom, and peace could have committed an act as horrific as this. To imply that our leaders planned and executed the events that took place on that day (or even knew about it ahead of time and let it happen) is preposterous to me. I'm not one of those people who are living in denial either. I've researched this topic thoroughly, looked at the evidence, and have even considered the view of the conspiracy theorists. I then came to the conclusion that although some things are left unexplained in the 9/11 Commission Report, there are not enough facts to support the theories of the conspirators. Here is a link, for those of you who want to check it out, of the magazine that persuaded me to stick by my government, and against the terrorists. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
This will lead you to a website provided by the well known magazine "Popular Mechanics."
Posted by: Nikki D at July 20, 2007 7:56 PM
This post is targeted to the last blogger, Nikki D.
You show great objectivity in your opening statement. However, you have a somewhat jejune view of what governments are capable of doing, especially ours. Let me share with you a former secret agenda in JFKâ€™s era. It was proposed to Kennedy in 1962 by top-ranking U.S. Department of Defense leaders and the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lemnitzer, to orchestrate acts of simulated or actual terrorism on U.S. soil in order to obtain the support of the U.S. public to infiltrate Cuba and dethrone Fidel Castro. Some of the means proposed for this operation included blowing up a U.S. ship with our Navy servicemen aboard in Guantanamo Bay and destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial airliner filled with college students on holiday. Here is the declassified text on the National Security Archive:
Also we have readily helped other government coups. Let me give you two examples, both found in the National Security Archive as well:
In the Argentinean coup in 1976, which the U.S. knowingly supported a national security doctrine that disregarded all civilized norms and any adherence to human rights, roughly 22000 Argentines paid the ultimate price.
This can be found here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/index.htm
Also, Pinochetâ€™s coup on September 11, 1973 in Chile was co-financed and promoted by the US government. Our CIA also initiated clandestine operations paving the way for the coup. Immediately after the coup, US officials worked hard to ease international criticism of the human rights record of the Pinochet regime. Iâ€™m not inventing anything, nor pulling this out of thin air. The details of this operation are also available at the same archive.
Now, in regards to our present discussion there is no conclusive written evidence that our government had a hand in the attacks of 9/11, only many peculiar discrepancies. However, there is substantial evidence from the past suggesting not to simply â€œtrustâ€ your government blindly but to think critically and be aware of your surroundings. Donâ€™t naively believe everything that is said to you. Find out the truth for yourself.
Posted by: DeutschlÃ¤nderwÃ¼rstchen at July 25, 2007 3:52 AM
"It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever."
The worrying thing, irrespective of whether you believe the 9/11 conspiracies or not, is that you believe that quote above.
Throughout history it is shown that it is EASY for a group of few to manipulate the minds and beliefs of the masses. The Russian Communist party. Fidel Castro. Gaddafi. The Nazi party. Saddam.
In almost all circumstances, small groups of focused individuals - 97% of all US Presidents have been Masons - have achieved massive goals and changed the paths of their countries, generally for the worse.
Believe or disbelieve 9/11 conspiracies, but under no circumstances should you accept that a small minority of people aren't capable of manipulating the truth.
guys every single conspiracy theory can be explained and destroyed. i think ill do some right now. security was not lowered to a an almost unexisting state at wtc before the attacks, it was just put back to normal. bomb sniffing dogs were not pulled. america is not falling into a big hole, we still have more freedoms than any country in the world. the debris on UA 93 was scattered four miles in front of the crash site, no debris on its flight path. it wasnt shot dwn
Posted by: brooble at August 30, 2007 4:14 PM
its more than obvious the government did NOT pull off 9/11. there is no hard evidence against them. but there is a lot of hard evidence of terrorists pulling it off. so any of u deciding whether to be a CT or not i pose this question, is there more evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or an outside job. it leans alot more to outside job.
Posted by: brooble at August 30, 2007 7:17 PM
It is one thing to question authority, but what happens when you question every little thing that happens? Madness maybe? Cellphone calls do get through on airplanes, steel doesn't melt at 1500, but it will BEND, and if anybody actually takes the time to look at the structure of those buildings they will see, that (they weren't built that great.) Was anything in the 60's and 70's? There IS actual footage of a a plane hitting the pentagon, and people did find pieces of 93 by where it crashed. It is amazing how time and time again, people think the U.S. government is some great and terrible mastermind! The greatest crimes against the people of America by the government during the events and before 9/11 was doing NOTHING!
The big conspiracy that people should be talking about is why we haven't impeached most of our government officials for their lies and duplicity about Iraq, of course anybody who really cares and pays attention could tell they were lying in the first place, just to seek revenge and get some oil, but in a cowardly fashion. However, if other people in the world think that their government is pristine and special.... think again.
Posted by: K. Beaudoin at September 10, 2007 5:29 PM
i am a relatively recent convert to the conspiracy theorists views - partly because - like you so wisely pointed out - that conspiracy theorists try to make sense out of chaos - they are generally slightly unhinged people who need to find meaning with everything.
at the time - along with the obvious horror - i thought some bits were just not right though - when the first tower collapsed for instance - i couldnt help but think "why have they demolished it?"
(i have always been a fan of explosive demolition).
but they went on about the "pancake effect" and i swallowed it up just like everyone else.
i mean - this was the BBC!
and eventually to me the whole thing just became tomorrows chip paper and i was left with a general unease about muslims.
however - last sunday by pure chance i stumbled across the first of many 9/11 conspiracy videos on youtube. (oh and im not stupid - i watched every news broadcast too).
i am now totally convinced that it was a false flag operation.
incidentally - i saw david icke years ago at the manchester academy and i thought he was a crackpot too.
Posted by: peter norton at May 23, 2008 10:41 PM
The conservation of momentum is about mass hitting mass. The collapse of the north tower is supposedly the top 10% progressively hitting the lower stationary portion. So talking about the conservation of momentum without talking about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers is complete nonsense.