• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was 9/11 an inside job?

Was 9/11 a conspiracy?


  • Total voters
    32
Assuming you second-guess the government's stance on the Kennedy assassination, they've kept that whole mess a secret for almost 50 years.

Now THAT I think is a conspiracy. That is only one though... the rest are not, including 9/11.
 
You don't think the U.S. government has benefitted from 9/11?

The US Government? No.

The military industrial complex and certain politicians? Hell ****ing Yes.
 
The US Government? No.

The military industrial complex and certain politicians? Hell ****ing Yes.

Perhaps I should have phrased that more so like "those that possibly control the US government."
 
I have a problem with the framing of the question. I think the technical definition of a 'conspiracy' is something like; 'two or more individuals, acting secretly, in concert.' The September 11th terrorist attacks were, absolutely, the result of a conspiracy; a conspiracy conducted by members of al-Qaeda, Mohammed Atta, and the 'Hamburg Cell', etc.
 
I like to believe it wasn't.

One thing I do wonder about is why they didn't show the Osama dead picture?
 
The TRUTH, is that they have no TRUTH. Only some wild arsed theories and beliefs. None of them based in reality, and most of them in constant conflict with themselves.

OK, so what do I believe? That nothing crashed in the WTC? That it was struck by missiles? That it was struck with remote control jets with nobody on board? That the steel was sprinkled with a magic Fairy Dust that made them weaker? That President Bush had explosives places all over the place? That it was ordered by the White House? The Mossad? The Saudi Royal Family? Saddam Hussein? The Tooth Fairy?

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to TRUTHERS. Personally, I just sit back and laugh as I cut them all apart with Occam's Razor.

Hi, allow me to introduce myself... I'm Occam's Razor.

A common misconception about Occam's Razor is that the data set and evidence must be simplified to arrive at the objective, the most straight forward answer. This is absolutely not the case. All data relevant must be considered as well as all available evidence and that evidence can take many forms, from physical, historical precedence, eye witness accounts, anomalous activities and events before, during and after, motives of suspected parties, feasibility, etc.

The mistake of many rabid truthers is in manufacturing theories and side theories on evidence and data that either doesn't exist (but hope to find one day) or very poorly understood science, using imagination to fill in the gaps. This has produced numerous crazy theories involving particle beam weapons and mini nukes, among many others. This has done more to undermine their movement and a legitimate request for further investigation than anything else while trashing the more rational, qualified and professionally developed theories. And IF there were elements of our government and monied elite involved, it would be safe to assume some of that was disinformation.

The mistake of the gov't supporters is that accepting the gov'ts word, or any part, party or faction of gov't, flies in the face of some of the most dire warnings of our founders to never trust your government, always be vigilant of it, and always ask the hard questions from a skeptics mindset. This was one of the most important duties and responsibilities assigned us as a people to preserve our liberty and keep tyranny in all it's forms at bay. And this is where Occam's Razor begins... We know from studying history in every era, that tyranny seeks power, and the tools of that tyranny take many forms but those forms don't change much. We know the flaws, foibles and weakness of the human condition with respect to ambitious focus on wealth and power. It is therefore not Occam's Razor to reject out of hand that a group with ambitions for excessive power played no part at all in the events.

Given the history of human nature related to power and wealth, the safest place to start is skepticism, as the Founders knew, of domestic power and ambition. Anyone that gives the irrelevant emotional response of "I refuse to believe that anyone in our gov't would play any part in this" has abdicated their responsibility to skeptically question those entrusted with the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen. That, history has shown us again and again is THE razor of human nature.

So once you accept that Occam's Razor first demands abandoning the position of trusting anything individuals or groups of politicians tell the masses as factual, or the whole facts, then and only then can you begin to apply Occam's Razor to the rest of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
But it was proven in a court that he was...

No, that was not what was proven in court. That is why he was found Not Guilty. That is not the same as being found Innocent.

And he was found culpable in the civil trial, to the extent of over $33 million.
 
Hi, allow me to introduce myself... I'm Occam's Razor.

A common misconception about Occam's Razor is that the data set and evidence must be simplified to arrive at the objective, the most straight forward answer. This is absolutely not the case. All data relevant must be considered as well as all available evidence and that evidence can take many forms, from physical, historical precedence, eye witness accounts, anomalous activities and events before, during and after, motives of suspected parties, feasibility, etc.

Yes, I am aware of that.

I for one am probably one of a small minority who had heard of OBL and Al-Qaeda before 9/11. And I also remember their first attempt to bring down the WTC.

One thing most people seem to forget, this was not their first attempt. The 1993 attempt was planned and carried out by Ramzi Yousef. Who's uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11.

One thing that Terrorists have an affinity for is attacking symbols. Wall Street, Airports, WTC, Capitol Building, Federal Buildings. Never mind that a more effective target would be a place where more people would be killed (like a major sporting event), they go after symbols. And to Al-Qaeda, the WTC was a symbol of the economic power of the US.

If the US wanted to start a war, there are a lot of more effective, cheaper, and effective targets then the Pentagon and WTC. Madison Square Garden during a basketball game. The arena where the Superbowl is being played. The UN Building. A major bridge like the George Washington, Oakland Bay, Golden Gate, or Brooklyn. All these could have been as damaging or more so.

However, they all lack the imagined symbolic effect that the actual targets had in the mind of the terrorists.

When you do a "False Flag" operation, the idea is to make it look like a major attacked happened. While in reality, nothing serious happens. The US would have been screaming for a war even if they hijacked 4 airplanes and crashed them into cow fields in the middle of nowhere. Actually attacking buildings was not needed.
 
The US Government? No.

The military industrial complex and certain politicians? Hell ****ing Yes.

I beg to differ.
cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif
 
My answer is no. Neither MIHOP nor LIHOP seem likely.
 
Back
Top Bottom