A good summary of the conspiracy theories and why it is unlikely to be true:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
This page of movie downloads, which may be more accurately called A Tragedy of Errors: How Ragtag Barmies Join the Plots, is chockfull of 9/11 finger-pointing. If nothing else, many of the features on offer illustrate abundantly the lengths to which CTists are prepared to go in their endeavours to reconcile the geometry of a right paralleliped with that of a circular orifice sans the use of Occam’s Razor. It is not, however, clear if the advanced hypotheses are put forward primarily because they are believed to be factual, or merely for the purpose of being provocatively controversial.
'Luthon64
(a.k.a. Bush-flunkey-lackey-stooge ::))
Well, I agree that many of the hypotheses that have been advanced about various aspects of the 9/11 events are quite unfounded, and are often based on looking a single piece of evidence in isolation.
However, the arguments over whether the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft or a cruise missile or whether the aircraft that hit the towers were real American Airlines Boeing 777s or military versions etc are quite irrelevant.
The real issues are:
Who was really responsible for planning the 9/11 events?
What was their motive for doing so?
The actions and words of the US Government, the President and the Vice President since then have been far from transparent, and the whole 9/11 Commission investigation was a whitewash from the outset because their brief did not allow them to investigate properly.
It’s a pity that the rubble was removed and dumped and the steel sold to scrap metal dealers before a proper investigation was done. A thorough analysis of the cause of the failure of the only three steel-framed buildings in the entire history of Engineering that have ever completely failed and collapsed in a pile of rubble on account of fire was certainly warranted. Why wasn’t it done?
The truth about who did 9/11 and why is being concealed, and until the truth is revealed, we ought to remain sceptical about the official account. There’s a definite pattern to it. The incident occurs, an FBI or White House spokesperson (or the President) appears on TV and says, “Osama did it” and then no credible proof is produced and no-one is indicted in court and evidence is never produced in an open and transparent forum.
The assassination of JFK, MLK and even Abraham Lincoln were much the same, as was the Oklahoma City bombing. It’s remarkable how these events all are blamed on the “lone nutter” who is found to have planned and executed the incident without any outside help. It’s remarkable how quickly that lone nutter is identified. It’s remarkable how little is offered in the way of proof.
In the case of 9/11, a strange (and as-yet not fully identified) group of men from the Islamic version of the Gideons (because they left copies of the Quran wherever they went) managed to outwit, outlast and outplay the intelligence community of the world’s only Superpower, and, without any support or aid from any outside agency, pull off the most outrageous and daring terrorist stunt ever right under their noses. And that Superpower was powerless to react to that small group of “Islamic extremist nutters” because of bungling and incompetence on a massive scale involving multiple agencies and top generals and decision makers. Remarkable, isn’t it?
In the case of Osama bin Laden, who was a CIA asset during the invasion of Afganistan by the USSR, is it not remarkable that the US military and intelligence community has been unable to apprehend him? Perhaps they don’t want to find him because of what he might reveal?
Anyhow, the official version that Osama bin Laden planned it, Al Queda operatives executed it and all the lies about various people having taken flying lessons in the USA etc are the clumsiest, flimsiest and most laughable “Conspiracy Theory” that has ever been presented with a straight face by a bunch of Washington Suits in the history of mankind.
There’s a lot of BS on the Internet about various details of the events of 9/11, but the Official Version is unconvincing and much is still unanswered. That Official Version deserves as much scepticism as anything that has been given the perjorative lable of “Conspiracy Theory” (note how often the words are capitalised by those denegrating them!).
The term “Conspiracy Theory” is so often thrown at alternative explanations for events that run counter to the “Official Version” that the process of ridiculing such alternative hypotheses itself begins to look like a conspiracy. It’s meant as a term of ridicule, as if theory is sucked out of nowhere. Well, of course, the term should be “conspiracy hypothesis”, but it’s hard to say that with a sneer. The term “theory” is of course the foundation of Science and is reserved for well-established principles based on an open transparent process of verification, not for ideas sucked out of the ether.
Creationists use the same approach in dismissing Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. They claim that we need not pay any attention to it because, “it’s just a theory”. So is Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, but I don’t think that the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945 stopped what they were doing to argue that point.
Wasn’t it done?
Hey, nothing wrong with a theory, but not all theories are equally probable. Usually ‘conspiracy theories’ are much less likely to be true than a ‘scientific theory’. That is why it is ridiculed.
And I can give the same reply to you that I give to them. What makes the theory probable, is the proof behind the theory. In the case of evolution it is supported by reliable evidence. But with most conspiracy theories there is little to no evidence. Only speculation, what ifs and “isn’t it remarkable” 
PS. Welcome to the forum BTW ;D
No. The relevant people, such as the New York City Fire Department were banned from the site. There was indecent haste in getting rid of the rubble, and the steel was sold to a scrap dealer in the Far East, Singapore, I think, and recycled.
You mean, there’s nothing wrong with a hypothesis?
One must be honest and admit that Science tends to be as much of a religion as any religion. People have been caught out for faking evidence to “prove” that some aspect of Evolution is valid. Not all Scientists are honest and objective. Many people treat Science as their God (or god) and are fervent and religious about it. There are high emotions on both the Evolutionist and Creationist sides.
Thankyou. 
Mm, I missed this on the first pass. Evolution is supported by mostly reliable evidence. There are some big gaps and huge assumptions too. Just because we think that the Creationists are deluded does not mean that we should deny the weaknesses in the current understanding of evolution and lack of evidence in some areas. We should also admit that quite a lot of radio isotope dating is based on assumptions and speculation, and in a lot of cases, the Scientists involved are just guessing. We think it works this way, and until we get better evidence, we will use the current theory. If contrary evidence is found, Scientists will either conceal that evidence, or modify the theory accordingly.
In respect of 9/11, I think it’s justified for me to ridicule the official version with the words, “isn’t it remarkable” since the various government agencies involved have made many pronouncements such as who did it, why the buildings collapsed, and why the aircraft were allowed to fly on unchallenged after they had deviated from their original flight plan without providing credible proof for any of it.
The same standards of proof are required from the proponents of the official version as are required from so-called “conspiracy theorists”. Just because one has the coat of arms on the front of the podium and the flag behind one, does not mean that one should be allowed to make pronouncements about these matters without being required to produce proof.
It’s high time that we all start demanding proof and not accepting what “talking heads” say on TV. For instance, where is the proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons or that they have enriched more than a few grams of uranium? It’s not acceptable to attack a sovereign state on the basis of unproven “conspiracy theories”, is it? Nor can we take the word of proven liars at face value.
Hello kennyg, and welcome to the forum.
It is probably true that there are some unanswered questions. That is because they are, as is often the case when calamities strike, unanswerable in even the loosest interpretation of the word “accurate.” It is, alas, in the nature of many people to misconstrue this circumstance as an indication of something sinister being afoot, rather than as what it actually is, namely simple lack of knowledge. This need to fill the gaps at any cost is at root the same human syndrome that persists in keeping god in ICU.
The single major difficulty with 9/11 theories is one of cogency. At most two of perpetrators, motive and execution come together in a credible synthesis, never all three. Usually, it is the execution part that is argued over. The reason for this is not hard to see either: it’s much easier to dazzle the majority of people with voodoo science than to build a coherent, dispassionate case against those whom you think of as your enemies and the cause of all your misfortune. Convincing one group of people of another group’s supposed evil requires that you give the first group a reason to hate the second. The “truth” of their supposed evil then follows as a matter of course.
9/11 struck at the very heart of the US, and the ongoing blame mongering, through a whole gamut of contrived scenarios, is indicative of the almost bottomless supply of hate being mined from those lamentable events. Because it’s obvious to anyone who cares to look that the US government is evil incarnate, isn’t it?
'Luthon64
Mm, no. That’s a bit of a stretch. It is however self apparent that the United States of America is the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism, and has been since the time of Teddy Rooseveldt.
At all familiar with the term sarcasm?
“Perpetrator?” Where, please, have US troops fought a guerrilla war as guerrillas using guerrilla tactics that would qualify them as you suggest? “Instigator” perhaps. The US has set itself up as World Cop (and simultaneously as World Whore) without exercising the impartiality that position implicitly demands. Their self-interest has consistently prevented them from an even-handed application of foreign policy, and has often provoked them into using subversive and sneaky machinations to achieve their ends. There are many derogatory things one can accuse the US of with some justification, but being “the number one perpetrator of acts of terrorism” is not among them.
Are you perhaps of the opinion that the US deserved 9/11?
'Luthon64
None of which is proof of any conspiracy. There are probably good reasons why this happened. You also don’t need to analyze the rubble to know how the buildings collapsed. The reasons for the collapse was examined by a number of qualified engineers, and the findings are available to anyone who care too look.
You can call it what you want, but the difference in the amount and quality of the evidence will always separate the two ideas.
It is the same for scientific theories and conspiracy theories. Once you have proper evidence for either religion or a conspiracy theory, it stops being that.
Of coarse scientists are not perfect, but that is why proper science have measures in place to to minimize that.
You show your blind and ill-conceived prejudice here, I’m afraid. Science is by its very nature self-correcting, which is not true of any religion. Science is empirical and evidence-based, which is a vital ingredient that religions, being authority-based, have in only the most meagre supply. Each of these two differences is sufficient to refute your position. Together they demolish it completely.
'Luthon64
No good scientist will conceal the evidence. In fact you will get very famous if you did find anything to overthrow a theory. And indeed that is encouraged.
I agree. And ditto to the conspiracy theorists.
Yes! And irony too. :
Then your definition of “terrorism” may be too narrow. Don’t you think that bombing a group of civilians in another country with which your country is not in a state of declared war could be construed as terrorism? Even if you excuse it by saying that it is part of a “war on terrorism”. Since when is guerrilla warfare the only form of “terrorism”. Since the word was invented it has always been applied to people that the US does not like. Likewise the word “insurgent”.
The US has invaded pretty much every country in their part of the world, except Canada. Occupying a sovereign nation with no provocation is hardly the act of a righteous party.
Just how narrowly do you wish to define terrorism?
No, I’m not. In particular I do not think that the 3000 odd people who died there deserved it. I will say that the US is party to the practice of extorting money out of most of the poor nations of the world. It’s called “developmental loans” and so forth. Less than 1/20th of the cost of the Iraq adventure would pay off the entire foreign debt of Africa and improve the lives of 90% of Africans. That would remove most incentives to terrorism directed at US targets from people living in Africa. Same applies to Asia and Central and South America, just the numbers differ.
Instead of the approach of attempting to subdue the citizens of other countries using guns and bombs, they could try being friendly and generous towards them. Debt forgiveness would be a great place to start. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Well, then I must be more precise. I wish to distinguish between Science that is objective and Scientism that is dogmatic and religious. Some Scientists are one, and some are the other. Not all scientists handle the evidence with the same degree of objectivity and honesty.
In your ideal world, Scientists would always report their findings truthfully. In reality, they often do not because their income would be cut off if they did. That applies especially in medical research. If company A is paying a researcher to produce proof of the safety and efficacy of their product and the researcher published findings that the product is highly toxic and of dubious value, the said researcher isn’t going to get work from that company again.
I used to be idealistic about Science and think that Scientists are totally committed to the Scientific method, objectivity and honesty, but the realities have led me to understand that Scientists as a group do not behave any differently to the rest of the population when it comes to looking after their own self interests.
And please do not entertain the thought that I am in any way in favour of religion. I consider religion to be the single most limiting influence on the human species.
And, equally, yours may be too wide. I have little interest in excusing the US’s shenanigans, but I do take issue with statements long on emotive and short on factual content. With the right spin, just about anything can be contorted into “terrorism.”
As for the remainder of your reply, there’s little there that I would contest, except possibly to add that it is important in such matters to distinguish the actions of a nation from those of individuals of that nation, even if those individuals are duly elected representatives of the nation.
These distinctions you draw and the practical aspects you describe apply to scientists as people, not science itself. The truth will out, even if it takes much longer than it should. It remains patently absurd to characterise science itself as being “as much of a religion as any religion.”
And lest it be thought that I am perhaps out of touch with the realities of the science enterprise, let it be understood that I have eight years’ relevant experience, and Dr Luthon64 13 years, and counting.
'Luthon64
The representatives of the American people are very quick to label anyone they don’t like a “terrorist”. The United States of America do not automatically occupy the moral high ground in spite of what they might think.
Which nation on earth has been the instigator of the most wars in the last 100 years? Which nation produces the most landmines? Just because your people are wearing an official military uniform and carrying an American flag does not make them any less terrorists than those terrorists that don’t have a flag. What would you call the group that tried to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs?
I wouldn’t call all Americans terrorists. Or all Afganis or Iraquis. The elected leaders do act on behalf of the entire nation, however, and some of the things that they have done on behalf of the citizens of the USA look just like terrorism to those who were on the receiving end.
I will grant you that and allow for a pure and untainted abstract concept called “Science”. The Roman Catholic Church does much the same in claiming that the few Priests who are pedophiles represent only themselves and not the Church as a whole. So the maveric scientists who lie and fake evidence are not representative of “Science” in its pristine and uncorrupted Ivory Tower, but of something else. Granted.
You’re conflating your moral indignation with facts. But the morality is not at stake here, and it is therefore not at all clear how these observations equate to terrorism. As I suggested earlier, with the right spin, just about anything that has an element of violence to it can be made to fit the terrorism mould.
That would depend on where my loyalties lay. Besides, you conveniently choose to ignore the lessons that were drawn from that failed escapade.
The power to self-correct is hardly abstract. It’s a defining characteristic with profound practical implications.
'Luthon64
It’s a standard that few Scientists keep to 100% of the time. Expedience wins more often than not.