nate has a point. Why do we all believe thousands of military and civilians can keep a secret like this for decades when an oral sex act in the White House can be made public within a year?
So why does it seem impossible that there is more to the story about 9/11 and Osama bin Laden than is being reported by the US gov? (especially when there is evidence which raises unanswered questions or pokes holes in the official stories)
Not impossible, I'll grant you that. It's also possible that the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center was the work of aliens. There is some evidence that aliens have infiltrated the U.S. government, and this would go a long way toward explaining why the NIST report on the WTC collapse -- clearly manipulated -- doesn't even mention the possibility of controlled demolition, let alone the involvement of extra-terrestrials.
I personally haven't, and I don't think anyone has because there isn't evidence that points to extra-terrestrials. There is evidence that points toward controlled demolition.
The real problem with discussions like this is that minority views are quickly dismissed on the basis of "conspiracy theories". It is impossible to have a real debate about these topics. But it is still frustrating to see so many people actively ignoring facts that are contrary to their pre-concieved views.
Y'know the problem with conspiracy theories in general? They never make any fucking sense on a psychological level.
The average conspiracy theorist starts from what they want to believe (generally that the US Government/The Bavarian Illuminati/the Jeeeeewwwws/Citibank/Oprah Winfrey is responsible for all the evil in the world) and work backwards from that.
What they never do is stop to consider "If I were so and so, and I wanted to achieve aim such and such", how would I go about it?
For instance, suppose I'm George W Bush, it's early 2001, and for some reason I've decided that I want to invade Afghanistan. (Possibly so we can build that oil pipeline which last I heard still hasn't been built.) What do I do?
Well, the most obvious thing to do is to invade Afghanistan. Circa 2001 there were already some pretty decent reasons for wanting to go to war in Afghanistan in order to take out those objectively-dickish Al Qaeda (who had already attacked the US on a number of occasions) and the Taliban (who were just plain assholes). The US public could probably have been convinced to go along with this, even in the absence of another terrorist attack. We went along with Obama to Libya, and with Clinton to Haiti and Iraq (Desert Fox, remember) and the Balkans.
But let's suppose they decided that this wasn't enough, and that it was totally worth killing thousands of US civilians for no particularly good reason, in a conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of other ostensibly-patriotic US government employees, despite the fact that if anyone ever found out about this then they'd all be executed for treason and the fact that everyone involved in this conspiracy has every incentive, before the attack happens, to blow the conspiracy open, save thousands of lives, and become a hero.
At this point I'm gonna skip several paragraphs from my originally planned response, because I'm getting tired thinking this hard about this much stupid. I'll ignore the "wouldn't it make more sense to pick another target" bit and the "surely a smaller scale attack would have worked just as well" bit... and even the "if you're already crashing an airliner into a building WHY THE FUCK would you also need to go to the ridiculous expense and difficulty of doing a controlled demolition AS WELL? Like the war couldn't have happened if we'd ONLY seen the crashing planes and the buildings HADN'T collapsed?
Instead I'll skip straight to my conclusion. The minimum bar which a conspiracy theory has to pass, in order for me to take it seriously, is that it has to make some fucking sense from the point of view of the people who are supposedly the conspirators.
You're right. Any of those scenarios are incredibly far fetched and don't make a lot of sense.
However, that doesn't mean we should just ignore evidence that doesn't fit the official story. If we discover evidence contradicting our current hypothesis, we can't simply ignore it because we don't like it. That's bad science.
All I am saying is that there are holes in the official account. Why are people so afraid to look deeper into these matters?
You are trying to use a straw man to attack any views other than belief in the official account. I have made no speculations about why the government has supressed certain facts. Certainly it's possible there is a more realistic and less flippant answer than "The Bavarian Illuminati/the Jeeeeewwwws/Citibank/Oprah Winfrey", but you are trying to lump curious scepticisim in with lunacy.
That's not fair. It is foolish to assume that either the US Government is not lying, or there is a massive conspiracy. It is also possible that there is a more boring and simple reason why the government has withheld information. But regardless, any questioning of even a minor detail and suddenly you are label a conspiracy theorist.
You are purposefully shutting yourself out to anything contrary to your views; I don't feel that is what I am doing.
Ok, now I know what you're up to. You can't fool me by pretending to be "objective". Listen up, you and the rest of Stanley Jones' cabal can't suppress the truth forever. Read this open letter to your fearless leader, and you'll see that your "secrets" are already out:
And where exactly do you think the U.S got the advanced directed-energy weapons that you would like us to believe don't exist? That's right. It all starts at Roswell, '57.
You are trying to strawman my argument. Aliens are ridiculous; that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. There are rational questions posed by people you are labeling as conspiracy theorists. You are trying to discredit them by exaggerating these claims. Again, there is some evidence of a cover up; there is no evidence of alien involvement. Your arguments are puerile and a distraction from what we are talking about.
Did you not even read the damn letter I posted? Don't talk to me until you've read that letter. And then go do some research, and tell me how the hell the WTC could have been brought down without the assistance of the high-powered directed-energy weapons that WE ALREADY KNOW EXIST IN LOW_EARTH ORBIT. I'd love to hear your theories, since you say you're so "open-minded". And don't give me any of that bullshit about "high-energetic thermitic devices". You and I both know that's a crap theory. And don't bother telling me that I'm "ridiculous", since I've already heard it a hundred times from the other Jones cohorts who only want their version of the "truth" to be told. READ THE DAMN LETTER!
Then again, if you really are one of "Doctor" Stanley's crew, don't bother even responding to me.
I read the letter you linked to. I'm very confused what you are trying to say to me.
Who is Stanley? I can't fully discern what you are saying about this letter; it sounds like there is some in-fighting between the leaders of a website that was publishing articles about 911 demolition theories. What does this have to do with our debate?
I don't know if you are serious about this directed-energy weapon. I think there is more credibility to the thermate theory, but I don't really know the details of space-based weapons. It sounds like science fiction.
Maybe I am just wasting my time responding to this. In this discussion I was merely trying to say that there are valid questions that have been raised about the official 9/11 story. Why are people so inclined to dismiss any such qeustioning as ludicrous?
No sir, YOU are the one dismissing the views of others as ludicrous. Just like the rest of the Jones cabal, you expect everyone to accept an overwrought orchestration of crashing planes and sulfurized aluminothermic incendiaries. First of all, everyone already knows that THERE WERE NO AIR PLANES! The video footage was obviously doctored:
Secondly, no amount of "debate" can explain away the deficiencies of even the most energetic barium-nitrate-enhanced nano-engineered thermitic demolition incendiaries, whose detonation velocities are not even CLOSE to the DV needed to incise concrete and steel structural members. It's obvious to anyone who understands exothermic chemistry that some fancy little thermite fireworks did NOT bring down TWO 500,000 ton state-of-the-art skyscrapers.
No, we both know there are only two things that could bring down those buildings in a convincing manner: 1. Low-yield, high-efficiency nuclear weapons, and 2.) high-powered, tightly focused directed energy weapons.
Are you seriously going to suggest that you KNOW FOR SURE that both these weapons were ENTIRELY developed by humans? Seriously?! Is it just a coincidence that both of them were developed in the massive off-limits-to-the-public military facilities at Groom lake, Tonopah, and the NTS, where there have been MANY proven UFO sightings over the past 50 years? Now who's being ludicrous. Open your eyes man -- don't be a conspiracy snob.
