why have the american govt.not put out any films disputing the 911 conspiracy theorys?

Question

i have watched numerous videos of the theories and must say that some of them are very convincing.why is the govt.allowing them to be broadcast around the world.did they really know that 911 was going to happen ?some of the ''proof ''is very conclusive especially the pentagon incident.

Answer 1

perhaps sometimes it is better to say nothing, than to dig a deeper hole!.

Answer 2

The American Government have no need to put out films disputing the so called 911 conspiracy theories because the whole world know,s that these conspiracy theories are a Load of B O L L O C K S , believed only by the "Sub Normal" Loonies and advanced by the Enemies of America and the Free World for consumption by the Gullable Idiots of this World

Answer 3

becaue anyone who READS will know that the consoracy is rubbish, READING is what thinking people do, the investigation was thorough and reduces all comspiracy therories to foolish cartoons for children

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of conspiracy theories have emerged about the attacks which contradict the mainstream account of events that day. The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of its people. Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that only al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks.

Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something significantly smaller than a Boeing 757 (typically a missile or smaller aircraft) have been raised by some conspiracy theorists based on photographs in which there appears to be a lack of expected debris or pieces of a commercial aircraft within the immediate impact area, and what some believe is a lack of damage to the building and the lawn. One of the first proponents of this conspiracy theory was Thierry Meyssan in his book 9/11: The Big Lie. The idea was also advanced by the website Hunt the Boeing![49] and the popular internet video Loose Change. A likely cause of these ideas, some say, was the initial scarcity of documentation of the attack. At first the only evidence available consisted of long distance photographs and video footage[50] taken after the attack, eyewitness testimony from individuals at the scene, and five video frames captured by a security camera which were released on March 8, 2002. A large amount of evidence was later released after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial and several Freedom of Information Act requests.

Suspicions were additionally fueled by a lack of video footage of the impact of the jetliner, since many assume that the Pentagon must be subject to intense camera surveillance for security reasons. In addition to the Pentagon's own security cameras, these people also noted that security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station and from the Virginia Department of Transportation was swiftly confiscated by the US government. On May 16, 2006 the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch's FOIA request.[51][52] However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos do not clearly show the impact of the plane, only the approach of the plane (at an angle) and the explosion cloud, thus keeping the "no Boeing" theory popular. In addition to the security cam footage, the Citgo footage was released on 15 September 2006, but did not show the attacks.[53] The FBI is to release the Doubletree Hotel video by December 22, 2006.[54] The video was originally to be released in November 2006, but it has been delayed with the FBI in the process of moving its FOIA operations to Winchester, Virginia.[55] The Doubletree Hotel is located on the other side of an elevated highway, which obstructs the view of the Pentagon.[56][57] Others are trying to obtain the over eighty other tapes confiscated in the Pentagon area after the attacks.[58]

The Pentagon "no Boeing" theory constitutes a controversial issue, even among conspiracy theorists.[59][60][61] Several researchers have shown that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body, that photographs of large amounts of wreckage and debris matching a 757 have become available, that the appearance of the size of the hole is typically misrepresented; and that the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet is a much more relevant dimension for the deepest parts of the hole than the overall 44 foot height of the 757's tail.[62][63] Purdue University also released a study with results that recreated the attack. According to Purdue, the plane was like a "sausage skin" because of the speed of impact.[64] Moreover, hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon describe it as an American Airlines Boeing 757.[65][66][67]

Answer 4

The United States government has not put out any films to dispute the 9/11 conspiracy theories because it would be a waste of money. The United States government allows people to broadcast their own 9/11 conspiracy videos around the world because we live in a free country and have freedom of speech. Your assessment that some of the "proof" is very conclusive and convincing is only an opinion, as many people have seen the same videos and came to different conclusions. Regarding your question on if the United States government knew 9/11 was going to happen is another point people differ in opinion on. There was a pre-existing pattern of terrorist attacks against the United States, so it is likely the United States knew of threats against the US, but not enough details to prevent the attacks.

Answer 5

I watched one film and it was just nonsense. It was this guy telling everyone to ring the Whitehouse because he thought people were going to "crew" a plane. Firstly, crewing a plane is quite different from Hijacking a plane, and secondly, what are the callers to the Whitehouse supposed to say? "I was told to ring the Whitehouse". So what do you think the receptionist is going to say to that? The guy on the tv gave no facts, no places where he had obtained the information, in short, no evidence - oh except for waving some paper in front of the tv camera.
Then someone said they wanted me to look at their website and it had a picture of a bicycle and a half dressed lady walking up some stairs.
Someone says a janitor was offered a million dollars. Why would a person planning to kill thousands of people suddenly offer to pay a janitor (no offense to janitors intended) instead of killing him/ her too?
The tv guy could have made a submission to the 911 Commission and didn't. What does that tell you?
The only thing that makes sense is a lot of middle management people in the FAA should know how to make time critical decisions and they don't. The President and the Executive were making decisions based on TV reports. That's not a conspiracy, that's a fact.
Think of it another way: A big plane is stuck inside a building with a weakened external metal structure, the building is on fire, the fire is sufficiently hot enough to further weaken the already weakened steel structure, and the weight of the building above the point of impact is gynormus. Isn't it logical for the steel structure near or around the point of impact to at least bend? If it starts to bend this will further weaken the structure, and lead to a snowball effect.
Common sense says the building will collapse, and it did. If you don't believe me believe ObL. He is a civil engineer and he said he planned the attack.

Answer 6

Proof is very conclusive?? You do mean convincing!! the reason why they can be broadcast around the world is first its a free country
but more than that when you investigate the claims by 9/!! theorist you see they leave out facts because certain facts kills the theory...Just remember a theory is an assumption without proof!!

Answer 7

By putting out films disputing the conspiracies, people will think the government is trying to hide something and divert attention away from them. All it would really do is add fuel to the fire. As for your comments about the pentagon incident, I too think there is something very strange about that one, and I doubt that a plane hit it.

Answer 8

This is called "not dignifying the question with a response" and I have to say that on this I agree with them. The idea that the USA would blow up two of the most important buildings in New York and murder 3000 innocent people just to provoke a war is a little far-fetched to swallow and I think they are quite right to ignore these "theories". They cannot control what people post on the Internet, where plenty of nuts and conspiracy-addicts can post whatever they like.
All I wish them to do is get the hell out of Iraq where so many people are being killed each day.

Answer 9

Bah. I see one post referenced the Bin Laden family. I am assuming that when one pictures the family they are picturing Muhammed (proud papa), Alia (proud mama) Osama and little sister Alice.
The fact is that Islam allows multiple wives and Muhammed being as successful as he was used this to his advantage including having "temporary" wives. Osama was a son born of a Syrian (Alia) who was one such wife. They then divorced and Alia and Osama continued to live in the Bin Laden compound. This is a massive family, most of whom are exceedingly Western in values.
Moreover, given the close relatinship between the Bin Laden family and the House of Saud, any incident against a member of the family in the wake of 9/11 would have been a disaster. I don;t blame anyone for wanting to avoid another disaster, quite frankly doing otherwise would be more cause for conspiracy theories if one were so inclined.
Me, I prefer to waste my time on this message board. Points, damn Yahoo.... you got me hook line and sinker.

Answer 10

nicely, I even have in my opinion considered ufos (i substitute into 11, so.. it could have been a airplane of a few type.), and that i've got seem some fishy events bearing on 9/11.nonetheless, i could say extraterrestrial beings could be greater feasible on the grounds that we do stay in an limitless and generally unexplored universe and because there have been many (perhaps interior the tens of millions) first hand debts of alien phenomenon for the period of the finished international. Umm, i do unlike FOX, or CNN, or any of the main perfect 24-hour information networks (i bypass on line to get my information.). you could shop on with the finished fox-calling-human beings-idiots concern to something. human beings tend to call out those whose techniques variety from the norm. Yeah, i'm going to admit, i've got finished that myself. bear in ideas the Raelians? Buncha oddballs to me. yet despite, they are weird and wonderful to me because of the fact their ideals are too bogus and farfetch in my head. i in basic terms discover it not undemanding to understand why they thought what they suspect. it in basic terms would not upload up in my little bitty ideas.

Answer 11

To respond to them would be to acknowledge credibility. The conspiracies are all stupid. No person qualified to understand the building structures believes any of the theories. The pentagon conspiracy theory is only convincing if you discount hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. Think about it, for any conspiracy that massive, hundreds of people would have to be in on it. How would they be kept quiet?