What do u think of these 911 conspiracy theories & debunks?

Question

The main conspiracy points put forward are outlined below. (These points are in no particular order)

Conspiracy 1) The George W Bush administration conspired to either organize the attacks or, at the very least, allowed them to take place. The evidence for this, conspirators argue, comes in the form of a policy document - Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (pdf, size: 852KB) (external link to newamericancentury.org) - which was written a year before 9/11. The report was authored by leading members of the Bush administration under the name of The Project for the New American Century (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush were contributors to this report, according to UK Channel 4 documentary 'The 9/11 Conspiracies', broadcast 9/9/2004). The report says that it would only be possible to fully secure America's defenses in the world if there was a 'catastrophic' or 'catalyzing event', 'such as a Pearl Harbor'.

Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911 argues that the Bush presidency used 911 to radically increase powers at home and to increase a climate of fear, so that it could wage wars which will increase America's influence in other areas - American business has much to gain from the reconstruction and oil in Iraq. In a meeting after 11th September, Bush was keen to find a connection with Iraq so that it could be attacked.

Counter: There is a report, and it does say these things (page 63), but does it mean that these people therefore engineered 9/11? This is seen as a smoking gun by many conspirators, and even for skeptics this is quite a strange report. The counter must be that the George W Bush administration would be absolute monsters to do it. After 9/11 they pretty much did react in the way set out in the report, which could be seen as an understandable reaction if they felt the country was under attack.

Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11.



Conspiracy 2) President George W Bush, or those in his Administration, stood down air defenses on September 11, 2001. According to the conspiracy argument, in the year before 9/11, commercial airlines went off-course 57 times and in each case they were given an airforce escort. Where were the airforce on 9/11? If there was such an order it would have had to come from at least Vice President level.

Counter: The 9/11 Commission looked into this and did not find evidence of a stand down order. Embarrassingly for the USA, however, this investigation revealed that the USA was particularly vulnerable on 9/11 to this type of attack. As part of the peace dividend, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and Communism, savings were made to the airforce cover provided inside the USA. The emphasis was more on preventing an attack from abroad, not from inside the US itself. So, airforce cover had been shut down as a long term policy, rather than told to stand down specifically for these attacks. (Where does the assertion that, 57 times before 9/11, the airforce did provide cover come from?)

Conspiracy 3) The Pentagon attack. The Pentagon was not even hit by flight 77, but was hit by a missile under US orders. The impact crater in the Pentagon was only 18 feet wide, but it had just been hit by a Boeing 757 which has a wing span of 125 feet and a tail 40ft high! There was also little wreckage. The US (or Soviets, or UFO) must have bombed it with a missile, surely?

Counter: Many credible eyewitnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Security camera footage (from which the still, above, is taken), which was used by those putting forward this conspiracy argument, missed flight 77 actually hitting the Pentagon, it just sees the explosion (it also doesn't show a missile hitting the Pentagon either by the way). The plane hit the building at some 500 miles an hour, the subsequent inferno burnt up the plane which explains why hardly any wreckage was found.

Evidence: To see the video (released under the Public Information Act 16th May 2006, click here (.wmv format)) to see all the frames from this video click here.

Conspiracy 4) The sudden collapse of the Twin Towers. Conspirators say that a steel framed high rise building has never collapsed before just because of fire. The collapse is consistent with a controlled demolition. Did US agents plant explosive charges to maximize the death toll?

Counter: The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were designed in the 1960's to withstand either a hit from an airplane or fire, but this attack was both together. Leslie Robertson, Structural Engineer of the World Trade Center: "There is no evidence there was a bomb inside." The planes were filled with fuel and this set off a chain reaction in the buildings which caused the damage.

Conspiracy 4b) We have seen arguments that the following footage shows a controlled explosion (video: wmv rm). We just don't see it that way. A controlled demolition would have required an explosion from the bottom, all this video shows is the tower collapsing from above. It is said that you can hear a large bang (the commentator refers to it) but that could easily have come from the beginning of the collapse at the top of the structure.

Conspiracy 4c) We have also heard arguments that the top-down collapse of the mainly steel Twin Towers can be compared to a controlled explosion of a brick and mortar building, as seen in this example (wmv rm). Trouble is, the Twin Towers did not collapse like the second controlled demolition example in this video. In the controlled demolition example the explosive charge is set at the base of the structure (you can't see it explode because there are buildings in the way), the explosion then starts off a domino type effect and the entire structure collapses downwards. The Twin Towers collapsed from the top down, not bottom-up like in a controlled explosion.

Conspiracy 4d) We have also heard it alleged that the secret services have hushed up satellite images which apparently show a heat source at Ground Zero, after the collapse of the building. The conspiracy says that it was this (additional) heat source that enabled the Twin Towers to collapse in the way that they did. However, following the high heat required to destroy the towers from the aircraft filled with fuel, we would expect to see a heat image following the collapse of the building, and don't see that this proves there was an additional heat source put there to create the controlled demolition.

Conspiracy 5) Israeli agents knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance but did nothing to try to stop them, hoping it could be used to their advantage against the Arabs. A group of men in a van were seen apparently celebrating when they saw the Twin Towers being attacked. They were arrested by police. The police were suspicious. They found dual passports, $4000 cash in a sock. At least one of the men was Israeli secret service who refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks.

Counter: This opened up a conflict between Israel and the USA. The USA seemed to be unaware that Israel were spying on them. The men were not charged, apparently on the condition that Israel stops spying on the USA. There is no evidence that Israeli secret service had any information on 9/11 before it happened.

Conspiracy 6) Similar to Conspiracy 5) but the House of Saud were behind the 9/11 attacks in the hope that the USA would then take action against the growing fundamentalism which is particularly destabilizing for them in Saudi Arabia. Immediately after 9/11, charter flights crisscrossed the USA picking up high ranking Saudis including many bin laden family members to enable them to leave the country. Surely they were material witnesses who should at least have been questioned? This is alleged to be part of a cover up as there are close family/business ties between the Bush family and the House of Saud.

Conspiracy 7) Al Qaeda used the stock market to make money out of the 9/11 attacks. Suspicious short selling was observed in the airline companies involved in the attacks, which meant that someone somewhere profited when the price of the airlines involved in the attacks fell sharply when the stock exchange reopened.

Counter: The 9/11 Commission investigated all trades and found no links to Al Qaeda. There are millions of trades outstanding at any time in a market the size of Wall Street. It is unlikely that Al Qaeda would be able to do this without it being traced back to them as the market is highly regulated (highly auditable

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?

Answer 1

i have done a lot of research myself and in my opinion bush did have something to do with what happened on 9/11. there are too many unanswered questions. I'm totally with conspiracy 1, 3, and all 4's. none of those have answers so far. i have seen many documentaries and none seem to make sense on bush's side. the science behind all of this is leaning more on this couldn't have taken place without a little help. the towers falling i mean. i really believe that there where explosives that took it down. and not to mention that building 7 went down with little fire in the building. weird there is still no answer to that one.
remember newton's law of gravity.
oh and where was bush again when this all happened?? lol.
and didn't he go play some golf on vacation just a couple weeks later...





this was a great question by the way........

Answer 2

Some of them are clearly BS.

There is been no evidence found to support number two (air force stand-down).

There is clear evidence of a plane striking the Pentagon and of plane wreckage scattered around. Also, there are hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. The missile theory is baloney.

The problem with theory number fours main assumption, what the Twin Towers were built to withstand was that is not what occured on that day. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a collsion from a Boeing 707 (the largest commercial plane when it was built) while it was landing. These towers were instead struck by much larger Boeing 757's fully loaded for a cross-country flight. Also, there is no proof that termite or any explosive was used at the Twin Towers cite.

There is no evidence to support the idea that either the Saudis or the Isrealis had anything to do with this attack. It is as absurd as saying that the Iraqis helped plan the attack.

Theory 1 is really the only one which may have any shred of truth. The report cited does indeed exist and was written by high ranking members of the administration prior to 9/11. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any member of the administration planned or executed the 9/11 attacks. The writing of this report does not serve as proof.

All of these theories lack on critical component, none of them have indisputable evidence to support them.

Answer 3

I've seem most of the conspiracy stuff and followed up on a lot of it. Given a little time and paranoia I could find a conspiracy in everything. (remember the bar code, OMG they can tell everything you bought)

OK here's my question to everyone who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy. Where are the people who wired the builds? Set up airplanes, bought the fuel, managed to find pilots to fly the airplanes into the building, or the pilots who remotely flew the airplanes? Where did the explosives come from? Who bought them?

Come on I'm waiting. If anyone knew anything the only way they would be safe is to talk. Think about it, the only way to make SURE all the people involved kept quiet is to kill all of them. And all their families, girlfriends, boyfriends, anyone they might have talk too, ETC. I think you see my point.

The government is terrible about keeping secrets, if anyone thought they could make brownie points for the next election, you would see the headline across the New York Times.

No, it would take way too many people, and people talk, and someone credible would have come forward by now.

Answer 4

Building 7 was a controled demolition, thats why they have not released a "final" report. People can call us crazy for thinking these things, but untill they can provide CONCRETE evidence to support the "no demolition" theory then it will always be a theory.

and they cant prove it cause one they DIDNT test for it. and two they SOLD all the evidence ILLEGALY.

but they wouldnt cover up something that hmmm gave them exactly what they wanted.. a reason to invade Iraq.

Answer 5

I have looked into this for quite a while and i do believe that the U.S. government did have something to do with it. If you look at the photos of building seven come down, it looks like its busting down at the seems. And why were the bin ladens flown out of the US. And many people did profit from this which worries me the most.

Answer 6

As inept and incompetent as this admistration has shown itself to be, there is NO way they could pull off a conspiracy as big as the 9/11 attacks.

Did they look the other way when they knew it might happen to further their political agenda? Maybe...

Answer 7

Truth is stranger than fiction.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Answer 8

There will always be conspiracy theories, many come from Bush's opposers who desperatley want to blame him for the attacks.

Answer 9

All these conspiracy theories of nothing more than manifestations of the bitter hatred and anti-capitalist ideals that the ultra left wing practice on a daily basis.

You can't reason with their cemented minds. You can't penetrate the shield of arrogance that drives them. Just pity them.

Answer 10

there will always be people who are invested in conspiracies, they feel helpless, I think. therefore they need a conspiracy to give them a reason to feel better about not being able to influence things