Loose Change - 9/11 conspiracy truth

[squints]

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

that is pretty interesting. All that stuff from the American Free Press is pretty crazy. Its been months since i watched Loose Change and I've seen Alex Jones' Terrorstorm since then and I'm not buying into the government planning the whole thing. Like Bush says on that episode of South Park:

"Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9-11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever."

The crazy intricacies of a government cover-up combined with the Bush administrations constant screw-ups make the idea of a secret plot not very plausible.

But I still believe there are a ton of questions that need to be answered about that day and the lack of funding and general interest into the overall investigation is pitiful. 

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

The crazy intricacies of a government cover-up combined with the Bush administrations constant screw-ups make the idea of a secret plot not very plausible.

It does sync up pretty well, doesn't it?  If they come across to us as clumsy, then when anything calculated happens, they're not suspected.

[meatwad]

david lynch watches part of loose change

[Jeremy Blackman]

The crazy intricacies of a government cover-up combined with the Bush administrations constant screw-ups make the idea of a secret plot not very plausible.

It does sync up pretty well, doesn't it?  If they come across to us as clumsy, then when anything calculated happens, they're not suspected.

How has the Bush administration "screwed up"? Everything seems to be going as planned.

[squints]

well at least in reference to public relations...you could say they've royally f*cked up

[matt35mm]

I'd say that they fucked up with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  In other words: they haven't been able to convince people that they didn't fuck that up.

They did do a pretty good job of getting most people to forget about it, though.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Public perception doesn't mean much if they can still get away with it.

[pete]

chomsky on all this

[Gold Trumpet]

On Real Time with Bill Maher one time, Richard Clarke said it best, "All these conspiracy theorists have two basic problems. One is that they believe the government is competent and two is that they believe the government can keep a secret."

[pete]

so seriously, who still believes that it's an inside job?

[brockly]

upon watching the movie ill admit i did start to believe.


..then i watched another doc that had logical explanations for 90% of it. i dont think it was an inside job, but who knows.

and what richard clarke said doesnt really stand for shit.

[Gold Trumpet]

and what richard clarke said doesnt really stand for shit.

It stands for as much as general comment can. Clarke doesn't explain the nature of conspiracies, but he does address a part of conspiracies theories that do go overlooked. Noam Chomsky also questioned the ability for the government to keep a plot this big a secret. While what Clarke said may not be relevant to every situation of conspiracy, it does have meaning to this one.

[picolas]

i'm not sure what i think anymore. if they'd release the footage of the pentagon i'd feel better about the whole thing.

[Jeremy Blackman]

First of all, we need to stop believing that the Bush administration is incompetent. That quote from South Park is pretty ignorant and reflects how well the incompetence myth has worked. Would the Bush administration be incompetent if Bush was running it? Sure. Is he running it? No. Bush has worked as a perfect figurehead in this way. Someone who probably can't accurately pronounce "conspiracy" surely can't carry one out, right? Right...

Iraq is a great example of faux-incompetence. The idea that Iraq was planned chaos is an increasingly mainstream view, and one that is supported by all the evidence. (As Randi Rhodes likes to say, in chaos they can steal.) Read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, or listen to some of her interviews. We've learned since the invasion that the Bush administration was warned about what they were doing and told explicitly what would happen. You don't think they expected it? Much of the neocon vision, for example, has been realized. There's been some unexpected resistance to the oil "sharing" agreement, but that's about it. Once the violence has ended, if it ever does, they will still have their military bases and Paul Bremer's corporate paradise, not to mention the "long-term cooperation agreement" that the Bush administration is now independently negotiating with the Iraqi "government." They also hope that all this insane war spending (and our current debt of 9 trillion dollars) will eventually lead to the complete dismantling of all public institutions and the privatization of everything. The apartheid in the middle east is also clearly in their interest, since it is the source of so much conflict in the world. Katrina is an example not of planned chaos, but of willful neglect followed by complete exploitation. New Orleans has served as a testing ground for martial law, private militaries like Blackwater being allowed to operate domestically and randomly murder people (read Jeremy Scahill's first-hand accounts), comprehensive privatization of public schools, widespread use of low-wage foreign workers, etc.

People who believe the Bush administration is incompetent are the same people who believed Clinton was a peaceful president. Bottom line---there is no evidence of incompetence. This includes 9/11.

It's clear that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions. There's pretty much no debating that at this point. No building in the history of the world has ever fallen at free-fall speed into its own footprint, unless it was taken down in a controlled demolition. And jet fuel burns well below the melting point of steel. Let's say the jet fuel fires which were raging near the tops of the buildings actually were hot enough to melt steel (which they couldn't have been), and they did cause a structural failure. Since the damage is not perfectly even, the top of the building (that is, at and above the failure) would fall toward one side or the other, toppling over or sliding off, possibly taking another chunk of the building with it. But it's physically impossible for a failure at the top of the building to instantly create a universally, flawlessly, evenly distributed and instant structural failure that would cause the entire structure to collapse with perfect symmetry onto its own footprint. In other words, there's simply no other physical explanation. The buildings were demolished.

We don't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon. It could have been a missile, explosives, or a small plane, but it definitely wasn't what they say it was. We don't know exactly what happened in Pennsylvania. Either the plane was shot down or there was no plane. We can say that the official story is a lie.

Look at the history of inside jobs, false flag operations, and the like, including the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, and so many others which are uncontroversially accepted as part of history. The government (alongside industry) has done it before, and they will do it again. How is 9/11 magically immune from the same kind of critical thinking? Are we not emotionally prepared to accept that our government is capable of murder and deception? I think we need to get over it.

I don't need to describe the motives. Ask the age-old question "who benefitted," follow the money, etc. etc. PNAC openly begged for "a new Pearl Harbor," for God's sake. This is basic stuff. The Patriot Act, 2-3 wars, massive growth of government power and loss of civil liberties, debt (as I mentioned), permanent military bases in Iraq, continuous conflict, and all the rest. Look into Larry Silverstein, the Bush / bin Laden connection, the documents that were destroyed in WTC7 and that section of the Pentagon. You can look at all these motives, and you can also look at who was in charge of WTC security, all the various financial connections, the intelligence agencies' connections with the supposed hijackers, the history of Al Qaeda's long relationship with CIA.

While the people either in our government or intimately connected with our government executed 9/11 successfuly, it was certainly not perfect, and they definitely did not cover all their tracks. This is the very reason for the explosion of the 9/11 truth movement---it only takes common sense and the most faint understanding of physics to realize that the official story is a bald-faced lie. The obviousness of it all is almost insulting.

While we were shocked into submission that day, all it took (to mix metaphors) was throwing some red meat into the media echo chamber. The official story got repeated enough that it became truth. Note, for example, that the media (including Tom Brokaw and other mainstream anchors) were talking about bombs and explosions in the buildings and the collapse of the towers being similar to controlled demolitions until the official reinterpretation was fed to them.

Since the government has obviously covered up the truth about 9/11, that suggests a pretty high level of involvement and complicity, don't you think?

[pete]

I don't know what exactly is "the official story", since even the officials are making different claims.  it seems obvious that Bush was warned but didn't do much, just as he's been warned about everything else (Katrina, the war, the scandal...etc.) and couldn't properly react.  That seemed like incompetence to me.  He always knew that there would be bodies to insulate him from ever being linked, as his powerful friends all knew.  To extrapolate such an elaborate theory from such a simple fact seemed like a stretch.  It seemed like circular logic - "because the administration benefited from a tragedy therefore they must've triggered it because they clearly benefited from it" - your hypothesis for the motivation is the same as your conclusion, which is not very convincing to people outside your belief.

seeing folks benefiting from incompetence still doesn't convince me of their competence.  see an apathetic government also doesn't convince me that it has orchestrated the problems that it can be apathetic towards.  what I mean is, like Chomsky and others have pointed out, totalitarian regimes everywhere in the world have benefited from 9/11, it still doesn't provide enough evidence for a motive.  it would be the same logic as blaming insurance companies for every tragedy ever just because they benefit from every tragedy ever.  it is not a stretch for crooks who've set up a corrupted system to further exploit it, but for them to completely dismantle their game in order to profit from something they were planning to profit from sooner or later, makes no sense.  I think it's far scarier to consider just how corrupt the system is that it can reap from an unexpected terrorist attack, then to think that it takes a break from its apathy to risk everything it's been building since after the second world war, just to make money from places that would've made them money anyways.

But as far as the actual execution of the 9/11 is concerned, you can't just say "it's clear that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions. There's pretty much no debating that at this point." and move on, because it is obviously not clear and is still being debated to death.  like we are right now.  Debating that type of structural mechanics has pretty much just pitted hearsay vs. hearsay - this scientist said this, that scientist said that.  I don't understand how you can prove any of those claims, especially made by people who were not there, in an environment that was neither "controlled" nor observed.  lets pretend to take what we've heard seriously - you claim that the steels couldn't possibly melt by the jet fuel, but what about all sorts of electronic equipments, computers, and other highly flammable materials - couldn't their explosions bring the steel to a boiling point?  what about the steel bridge that collapsed when a truck hit it earlier last year in Oakland?  The steel melted and gave away right there and then.

I'm glad you referenced The Gulf of Tonkin as an inside job, because then I don't have to do too much research to tell you how different it is from the government waging a war from a distorted claim and the government blowing up its highest profile buildings.  Firstly, how was it an "inside job" if neither of the boat was actually damaged?  The Gulf of Tonkin is much more apt as a reference to the WMDs, ie. a threat that most of the country didn't buy into, but still allowed the US to do whatever it wanted. 

tragedies are not that hard to exploit.  I lost a grandma in 8th grade and got to skip a month's worth of tests.  politicians in general have been cashing in for centuries, amongst other industries.  however, the controlled demolition assumption exoticizes evil until it is something so inhuman and cartoonish, that it unwittingly absolves the politicians of their current forms of apathy.  it also creates an enemy that is as abstract as "Terror", and siphons good people's wills and abilities to face their actual enemies in a capitalist America today.