For those who believe 911 was a conspiracy...?

Question

I have a few questions. Although I don't believe it was a conspiracy, I actually don't want to automatically discredit the theory(ies) that exist, but I do have some questions I'd be curious to know the answers to.

1. How do you explain where the people on the flights went? and if the pilots were in on it and just considered the passengers casualities....

2. How did the government convince the pilots to do the job?

3. What would be Bush's motivation for doing it? If you think it was an excuse to go into Iraq, it wasn't. He didn't need 911 to go to Iraq because we were going after weapons of mass destruction which weren't at all related to 911 (nor was Iraq for that matter).

4. What do you think is the strongest piece of evidence that it was a conspiracy?

It seems like I'm forgetting other, more obvoius questions, so if anyone can think of any other questions to ask bring em up, and hopefully the conspiracy theorists will answer those, too.

Answer 1

You are making it into a slightly different conspiracy than (at least) I believe.

To go point by point:
1) Maybe they used the planes, maybe not. There is just a question there because the debris was removed very quickly by FEMA and never seen again.

2) two options:
a) some people are crazy enough to do it
b) people dedicated enough to a cause will do some crazy things

Now that I have those two questions out of the way I will just say. I don't know enough about the planes to say anything for sure. They aren't the lynch pin for why I have so many questions.

3) Bush gained enormous amounts of political power after 9-11. Do you think the Patriot Act (which is horribly un-constitutional and gave the executive branch untold control) would have been passed in 1 week without 9-11?
We would not have gone into Iraq without 9-11. One of the primary arguements to the American people is that Saddam was closely tied to Bin Laden. This has since been hushed up, but it was still one of the top arguements for going in.

4) There are a number of key things that make one question the official story of 9-11.

a) The orderly collapse of the two tallest buildings in the world because of a fire. Talk about weakened steel all you want, but these buildings were made to withstand a lot, the bottom stories would not have (in my opinion) collapsed so quickly without help. However, this can not be properly tested and so cannot constitute proof.

b) At least 7 (I don't remember the exact number) of the terrorists are confirmed to still be alive. Not to mention the fact that almost immediately after the attacks the CIA (or maybe it was the FBI, I can't remember) came out with the names of all of them, had the number of them, and all sorts of other information. If they were terrorists, they would not have gotten on to the planes using their real names, nor would any of the other information been that easy to obtain.

c) (And in my opinion the one that points most toward a consipracy, at least of complicity) NORAD told military fighter pilots to stand down and did not let them take off to escort the hijacked planes after the first building was hit. The planes that were hijacked had their trancievers turned off (the radio that allows air traffic controlers to mark which plane is which) and so it was known which planes on radar were hijacked. It is military policy to escort any plane believed to be hijacked. After 9-11 the ones in charge of giving the stand down order were rewarded by Bush with better jobs and better pay, instead of being fired for incompitence (don't even get me started on Medal of Honor "Slam Dunk" Tenent).

Yes, I know none of this is direct proof of a conspiracy, but it is enough to raise questions.

Answer 2

1. The passengers were burned alive, or they're bodies were recovered. The pilots were casualties as well.

2. The government did not play a role in the attacks.

3. Again, no government involvement

4. There isn't a shred of evidence that it was a conspiracy

Answer 3

I've heard a few out-there theories which can be patently implausible, and noticeable proof that discredits others. At the identical time, there are plenty of unanswered questions and what looks to be a nice deal of inexplainable and unreasonable secrecy over questions which can be obviously now not important to country wide defense or terrorist events. Such secrecy evidently results in questions, and the loss of solutions results in hypothesis. For illustration, are you able to inform me why William Bergman could were summarily pushed aside for asking a official query beforehand permitted by means of his manager? A healthful skepticism of conspiracy theories isn't a foul factor. A steadfast avoidance of understanding is.

Answer 4

If the planes were cargo planes there were no passengers
2 Were the planes piloted?
3I do know the cost of taking down the twin towers [asbestos] would have been prohibitive.
4 No 747 wreckage at the pentagon

Answer 5

here is something. go to microsoft works or what ever you use for typing papers. type in q33ny (make sure it is capitalized). this was the name of the flight that crashed into the twin towers. Now change the font to Wingdings. You will see a plane going into two towers, and a Star Of David because the terrorists hate Jews, and a Death sign.

Answer 6

they were planes i was there, i almost got hit by an engine from the 2nd plane. no conspiracy, just angry suburban teenagers... they'll grow out of it.

A liberal who doesn't blame everything on bush, just most things.

Answer 7

It's easy. If you are a Liberal, Bush did it. Case closed. Don't EVEN question facts.

Answer 8

DUH they went to heaven thats how Bush got them to do it