Everyone believes in conspiracies. After all, whenever two or more people secretly collude to perform an action which effects others not in the know, it is a conspiracy. In the case of 9/11, some believe the official conspiracy theory, according to which Osama bin Ladin & others colluded in a cave in Afghanistan to pull off a miracle & succeeded. Others believe the conspiracy lies closer to home, that bin Ladin is the scapegoat, etc. As such, the pejorative term "conspiracy theory", as it does not add qualitatively to the debate, ought to be set aside by all serious thinkers & inquirers.

Popular Mechanics

I hold in my hand a book written by David Ray Griffin (theologian with over 20 books published) a book entitled: "Debunking 9/11 Dubunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory".

Griffin argues his case using evidence gleaned from architects, demolition experts, engineers, physicists, federal government employees from many agencies, firemen on the scene, eye-witness accounts, etc.

It is highly recommened reading, but here is one interesting quote about it:

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics." - Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration

But I would first recommend Griffin's first two books on the subject: "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11"; and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions".

Or you might just google David Ray Griffin and read some of his online articles, which are cogent, rational, and give you the gist of his arguments without purchasing a book.

But you might also want to read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Rupert, which closely examines the drive for oil & global domination behind 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror.

Or you might want to read Barrie Zwicker's "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11." Or Webster Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the U.S.A." These are just a few recommendations. There are many books by many researchers on the market.

Or, if you hate reading (in which case you might be in a bit of trouble), there are dozens of quality DVDs which cover numerous topics related to 9/11 and its coverup.

What I am attempting to demonstrate is that, right or wrong, I (and many others) are not going off half-cocked or shooting from the hip. I am talking about legitimate research. I am talking about, not a litttle, but a wealth of information, a veritable mountain of evidence, indicating an inside job. I was frankly stunned when I began to look into it with an open (if somewhat skeptical) mind.

A GREAT site for serious researchers is History Commons (historycommons.org) where a complete 9/11 timeline has been gathered from mainstream media sources all over the world.

But use your common sense for a moment and just try to answer these simple questions (off the top of my head) about the fall of the Twin Towers:

1. Why did they fall at nearly free-fall speed?
2. Why did they explode & disintegrate on the way down, pulverizing all the concrete into dust & everything else into tiny fragments?
3. Why did they fall into their own footprints, rather than topple over?
4. Why were large projectiles thrown outward from the towers (in some cases hundreds of feet) on their way down?
5. Why were squibs filmed shooting out of lower floors during the descent (an indication of demolition)?
6. Why were explosions reported by numerous eye-witnesses, including firefighters?
7. Why, in the history of the world, before or since, has a high rise steel-framed skyscraper NEVER collapsed as a result of fire, yet on 9/11 in NYC not one but THREE towers supposedly did so (this includes WTC-7, a 47-story building that fell at 5:20PM)?
8. Why were domlition rings seen around the buildings as they collapsed?
9. Why was all the steel conveniently sliced into 30-foot segments (another sign of controlled demolition) which were immediately removed & sold to China and elsewhere for scrap-iron, rather than being examined?
10. Why was molten metal found still smoldering in the sub-basement levels of all three towers WEEKS after 9/11? Do jet fuel fires burn hot enough to create molten metal?

Those are just a few questions about a single point in the argument against the official conspiracy theory. Go and look at the videos for yourself. Read the eye-witness accounts, etc. Use your brain. The bottom line....if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (and they were), it has to be an inside job.

lets talk politics.........

Well at least now we know where you get your nutty ideas. 

Bernice: Ok, politics.

Your government is using 9/11, which is a false-flag operation in common with a history of false-flag operations, as a Pretext for a global domination strategy (including the military control of space, as well as control of Eurasia by controlling the oil reserves in Central Asia) which is resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands, if not millions, of innocent men, women & children in the Middle East...for starters. And you, as an American citizen, have a responsibility to know what your government is doing & why...and then, to participate in the process for or against, etc.

Is that political enough? :o)

Artful Dodger: lol

David Ray Griffin:
still promotes "no plane" hoax,
promotes Holocaust deniers as credible sources
distrusts the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or cleaned up the plane parts afterwards

Artful Dodger: :o)

I would only recommend you read Griffin before you gather your talking points.

Seriously Dan, just having re-read "The New Pearl Harbor," it reads like a book YOU would have written...the thorough research, the organizational skill, the lucid presentation of points, etc.

I have little to no interest in nutty theories by unknown nut cases that ignore real evidence and promote falsehoods.  People can believe what they want.  I say those that claim there was "no plane" at the Pentagon are simply nut cases.  And anyone who claims that the inept Bush administration was able to pull off a major conspiracy, blow up several buildings, cause 4 airliners  full of US passengers to crash after get volunteers to hijack the planes and then crash them  (and commit suicide--I'm almost convinced now!) AND NOBODY ON THE INSIDE HAS COME FORWARD TO TELL THE "TRUTH."  Can you say Watergate???

I think these conspiracy theorists are the same guys that just bought a bunch of land in a Florida swamp too.  Yeah, and Randi has proven Jesus never existed (even tho there is more evidence of Jesus' existence than there is evidence that Randi exists). 

Ever notice how after hundreds of experts in their fields testify to the truth about 911 (debunking the nut cases) and some refuse to believes the experts.  But along comes a guy that studied at a Bible college, has a wacky theory, and they listen to him and hang on his every word.  Can you say gullible?

Seriously, conspiracy nuts are people who cannot think for themselves.  They are irrational.  Be amused by them, but don't take them seriously.  Think man, think.

The Usurper: is there something wrong with your mind/head/thinking.

Im not american, so what you are saying directly to me is all bulls---t....

I didnt realize you were so boring before, I always looked upon you as being a sort of "fairy" figure LOL....you know what that is? one who believes in fairies of both kinds LOL

Bernice:As there are dozens of books on 911 theories, I guess one should really read them all.  Amazon.com has 4 pages of books but most 911 conspiracy books are not sold on Amazon.  I would guess there are hundreds.  There are thousands of websites.  People love a conspiracy.

It just cracks me up that "experts" will disagree about a given idea but each one insists their view is the correct one.  They all say, "just look at the facts" but that is just plain stupid.  If two ideas conflict, either they are both false, or one is false and the other true.  So when competing ideas all claim to have "the truth" backed up by "the facts" one is better off going to the zoo and asking a baboon what he thinks.  He likely would stick his butt in your face which would make more sense than some of these wacky theories. 

Bernice: I didn't know you aren't American. I won't trade insults. You are a citizen of the world, of course. :o)

Artful Dodger: “nutty theories”
“unknown nut cases”
“conspiracy theorists”
“a bunch of land in a Florida swamp”
“wacky theory”
“conspiracy nuts”

Well, Dan, these are nice emotional outbursts if somewhat ad hominem when referring to legitimate argumentation.

I apologize for my misconceived notion of comparing you to the distinguished ethical theologian, David Ray Griffin.

The Usurper:  apology accepted 

Case in point:  Rosie O'Donnell

Actually, the contention is that no Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon, which means whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't American Airlines flight 77.

But most of you have better eyes than I. So I invite you, in these photos taken on site, to Hunt the Boeing!

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

If anyone here can produce video footage or solid photographic evidence of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon or wrecked at the Pentagon, please by all means do so.

W OW 30 posts don't you guys sleep OH sorry MOM & ladies LMAO:))))

The Usurper: it doesn't matter if you are wrong,rigth OR indifferent about ANYTHING on this board...if you don't fit into AD's way of thinking,your wrong and he thinks your..oh lets see if I recall one of his put downs..."dumb as a rock" I believe is one.
I don't really believe 9-11 was a conspiracy,it WAS a tragidy tho for sure,but again,it doesn't matter because it doesn't fit HIS way of thinking,he will argur this post,I know,and chances are slim I will respond back....most of us have learned NOT to waster our time,you'll learn to,eventually

anastasia: Can't he have FUN TO.You seem to LMAO:)))

"GERRY": who?

anastasia: WHO WHO did you just post to TO LMAO:)))

The Usurper:

So, what happened to the flight 77 then, if not crashed in the Pentagon?

"GERRY": he can dance nekkies in the street for all I care

The Usurper: What now then, with Obama as President? Does he expose this, or has he only pretended to be everything that Bush wasnt?

anastasia:  I just don't think there's any merit and I won't waste my time debating crack-pot theories.    But if you guys wanna have a go at it, be my guest. 

The Usurper:"Everyone believes in conspiracies."    thats rich, coming from you!! lol

Just watching something on the history channel.... seems there is nothing man or anyone can do to stop the coming of the next ice age

In fact, the best we can do is keep burning fossil fuels and that might slow the coming of the next ice age by up to 15,000 years....

Add to that, eventually the continent of Europe will collide with the east coast of the north American continent, putting a huge mountain range where NY city currently exists.... and ultimately the planet core will run out of fuel and the planet will simply die!

Czuch:   we need to increase global warming  !

Well he sounded like a stumbling bumbling fool,, what was that ridiculous line about nurses not being able to read doctors prescriptions?That being his reason US has the worst health care system, and that poor school in SC where a train runs by and they have to stop teaching because of it??all his justification for the pork bill.. hopefully Rahm is running things ok.. and anyone notice how O kinda threw his VP under the Bus???

Charles Martel: now it can be seen what happens when you let amateurs take over a professionals job...I couldnt believe some of the things I was hearing on our news this AM....

climate change delusion

That's what psychologists are saying about a 17 year old that refuses to drink water.  Global warming is behind it.

EVIL al-Qaeda chiefs are raping young male converts to shame them into becoming suicide bombers, it emerged yesterday.

The intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die.

But still they whine about the real heros (us military) that fights these thugs. 

Artful Dodger: and may I say, it isn;t only the us military, but there are also English and AUstralian HEROES who do a hell of a lot of good as well.....Please give credit where it is due.

Bernice: Thanks.  You are so right about that!  I stand corrected.  I've been watching some old History Channel programs about WWII and you're right to say that Britain and Australia have magnificent troops as well that have contributed, and continue to contribute to the betterment of our world.  God bless all our troops!  They sacrifice greatly on our behalf.  

<span>A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama's birthplace before approving the Electoral College  vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

Artful Dodger: there have been many such law suits, especially in Pennsylvania and California most of them before the election were thrown out, I know some after the election have been allowed to go forward but haven't heard much of anything lately

anastasia: Thank you for coming to my defense, if not of my position on 9/11, at least against Artful Dodger's admittedly ad hominem style of debate. But don't be too hard on him. He has learned it from those he admires in the media, the Rush Limbaughs & Shaun Hannitys, etc. I certainly don't expect Dan or anyone else to believe my contention about 9/11 (that it was an inside job with terrible ramifications for America and the rest of the world), based on my bare assertion. It is a matter, however, worthy of deep & impartial investigation, which neither has been done officially nor privately by Dan or most people who post here. So how, in such a case, could they rationally agree with me? What I hope to do is stir enough interest that some (never all) will investigate for themselves. If I can't manage this, I have still honorably stood my ground & debated my point.

The discussion of politics DOES take thick skin! And one of the first obstacles one must overcome in debate is the irrational, yet effective (for unthinking people) tactic of Ridicule. This method is normally employed by those whose arguments are otherwise weak or, perhaps, nonexistent. Everyone has an opinion, but we ought to base our opinions on evidence, not so-called authority...if, that is, we are concerned with truth.

So please post your views, Anastasia, including, if necessary, your opinion that Artful Dodger's methods are sometimes less than fair. :o)

Bwild: That's cute, but I notice you did not attempt a refutation of the point. :o)

The Usurper:if you told me it was dark outside at noon...should I argue?

Vikings:  I wonder how far something like that could go?  And wasn't that matter settled anyway?

Czuch: What happened to flight AA77, if it did not crash into the Pentagon?

That's a good question. The short answer is, I don't know. That's what a real investigation (such as any criminal investigation) might reveal.

What we do know is that Flight 77 took off at 8:20am from Dulles airport in Washington, D.C., that radio contact was lost at 8:50, and that at 8:56 the transponder went off & the plane disappeared from the radar screen of the Indianapolis air traffic controller. We know that at 9:09 this same controller indicated that a plane may have crashed in Ohio (which VP Cheney went out of his way later on Meet the Press to say didn't happen).

Then at 9:25 (29 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared), the Dulles controller reported a fast-moving plane headed for Washington. The identity of this plane with Flight 77 was not made until later in the day. In fact, one of the air traffic controls at Dulles said, speaking of this new plane, quote: "The speed, the maneuverably, the way he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

To claim, as I and others do, that 9/11 was an inside job, does not mean that we assuredly know all details of the plot. Much could no doubt be discovered through independent investigation. What we do know is that the official theory does not conform to the available evidence, physical & circumstantial, across the board, that it simply cannot be true. Thus, it is a coverup. And the evidence to the contrary is very powerful indeed. For example, a mass of evidence indicates that the Twin Towers & WTC-7 were brought down by controlled demolition. But to believe al-Quada sneaked in and did the thousands of man-hours of wiring necessary...well, it beggars belief.

For my part, I do not choose to call anyone a "nut" or "whacko" who seriously believes that a group of Arabs in a cave made a plan, then crossed easily into the U.S. (some of them on the terrorist watch list, some with expired visas), boarded another plane, hijacked it & flew off-course for nearly an hour without being intercepted by the finest Air Force in the world (which had never before, and hasn't since, failed so miserably), then flew unimpeded into Washington air space, right to the heart of our civil-military establishment, and crashed into the unoccupied, newly renovated side of the Pentagon while the five batteries of missiles put in place to protect the Pentagon sat silent. But while I don't criticize those who believe this, I think if they would examine the issue it would be hard to continue believing it. And I think it reasonable to believe there is a better explanation.

Bwild: It's up to you. :o)

The Usurper:  I'm not a big fan of Rush.   But do like Hannity but don't watch him much.  O'Reilly is my hero.      My favorite is Glenn Beck.  He used to work for CNN. 

BTW, ad hominem is a useful rhetorical style and many people use it.  I try not to direct it at the people I'm debating but at those they support  (much like you did below although more subtlety).  When I said "dumber than rocks" I was referring to the democrats in Washington (specifically) and the democratic party more generally -- the leadership. 

I don't think that is any different (an not nearly as bad) as you (and those that hold to your nutty views) when you accuse President Bush of treason.  That is what you are saying.  You've already come to your conclusion and you've no problem with throwing that accusation around.   So you'll excuse me if I don't feel too bad for saying your theologian and any other conspiracy theorists you admire are nut heads, whack jobs, fruit cakes, imbeciles.  I could go on.  

I do disagree with this, "irrational, yet effective (for unthinking people) tactic of Ridicule."  for a couple of reasons.  For one, I think ridicule can be effective when one is dealing with lemmings.  But a better point is how hypocritical the statement itself is.  While discrediting those that would ridicule others, you ridicule them for being unthinking and irrational.  So you have fallen into your own hole. 

The Usurper:"To claim, as I and others do, that 9/11 was an inside job, does not mean that we assuredly know all details"

except for the detail that it was an inside job of which you lack all known details.  So you come to the table with an a priori assumption.  At least those that you quote do.  You claim to be interested only in the "facts" and an "honest investigation."  Why investigate?  Seems you have it sewn up.  It was an inside job.  Now if you can just find the evidence to support your "facts." 

And BTW, Arabs don't live in caves.  That's a favored tactic of the fanatics on the conspiracy as well, paint the Arabs to look like a bunch of dolts and that ought to put doubt in the people's minds that they could have pulled it off.

Ummmm, didn't the left always claim that Bush is  a dolt?  He can't complete a sentence and isn't too bright?  And yet he was able to be at the head of such an elaborate hoax?  sure.

Czuch: You asked me:

"What now then, with Obama as President? Does he expose this, or has he only pretended to be everything that Bush wasnt?"

That is an excellent question! And my position is...that he has "only pretended to be everything that Bush wasn't."

Far from exposing this, he wants a troop buildup in Afghanistan. Why? Because Afghanistan must be stabilized so the long-delayed plans of Unocal to build an oil pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan through Pakistan can be finally realized. That's why we went to Afghanistan in the first place...to take matters about the pipeline into our own hands because the Taleban regime was too unstable.

In short, Obama works for essentially the same people that Bush works for. These people own large portions of the world and want the rest. To them it is a zero-sum game. They are psychopaths with no conscience. And that is Obama in my opinion...a polished psychopath doing the bidding of elites. He supported the first bail out, which was simply robbery of the poor & middle class to give to the same Wall Street thieves who had already robbed the nation into relative poverty.

Obama is not president by accident. If we had a true democracy or true republic, that might be possible. But what we have is an oligarchy with a facade of democracy/republicanism. Enough of the 'mob' (i.e., enough citizens) were so disgusted with the previous administration, and with the economy, etc., that the appearance of 'change' was necessary to keep the rabble in line. And that's what we have...the appearance of change.

The real issue here is power. Those who have it want to keep it, and want more of it, lest they lose what they have. And believe me, what you hear on the nightly news (whether it is Fox on the 'right' and MSNBC on the 'left') AINT the truth!

A good book on this is written by Webster Tarpley, called "Obama: The Postmodern Coup - Making of a Manchurian Candidate." Remember (I mentioned a few posts down) that Tarpley also wrote "9/11 Synthesis Terror: Made in the U.S.A." Tarpley has since expanded his Obama book by a couple-hundred pages and published it under the title: "Barrack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography." But I haven't read that one.

This brings up another point about the 9/11 question. It is not a Left-Right issue. For example, Alex Jones is one of the most conservative of talk show hosts (see his websites, prisonplanet.com & infowars.com). He supported Ron Paul for president (who, incidentally, I would have voted for had he been on the ticket..and I did NOT vote for Obama or McCain). Alex Jones has been exposing the truth about 9/11 for several years, alongside the truth about the illegality of our income tax, for example.

Artful Dodger: This is a much-better composed (i.e., rational rather ad hominem) argument on your part, than some of your previous posts.

I can't agree that arguing someone is "unthinking" or "irrational" is quite the same as calling them "nutty" or "whacko". After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you making a good argument of it. :o)

Artful Dodger: My conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is certainly not a priori. It may be wrong, but I didn't come to the table with it. It wasn't an assumption I made at the beginning of my investigation (which wouldn't really have been an investigation then, but rather an effort to reinforce my a priori position). I know my position appears to be an a priori one to you, perhaps, since I did come HERE with that conclusion already firmly entrenched in my mind. But that DOESN'T mean my mind can't be changed or that my position is unalterable. Or that I am unwilling to look farther, even to reassess my views in the light of new (or better-interpreted) evidence.

As a matter of fact, I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job when I began my investigation. It just seemed to too convenient (i.e., Bush might capitalize on 9/11, but not be complicit in it). And I didn't really plan to investigate.

One night I decided to take a look to see how the other half lives. I heard something about those who believe 9/11 to be Made in the U.S.A., and I decided to take a quick look. What I found, frankly, was surprising, as I've already expressed. So I felt I needed to investigate further. When I started, for example, I knew next to nothing about false-flag operations, or the history of them. We all have these vague ideas, but few spend the time to really look into things, etc.

Yes, I do accuse Bush of treason. Not only Bush, but my entire government, Democrats & Republicans, anyone who voted for the Patriot Act II, for example (it guts the Bill of Rights) or the Military Commissions Act of 2006...certainly anyone who waged war on false pretexts or was complicit in 9/11, as the Bush administration was at the time and many others are (Democrat & Republican) after the fact.

<span>mine are right from the dictionary:

whacko - 20 thesaurus results       absurd, asinine, bedlamite, bonkers, cracked*, crackers, daffy*, demented, deranged, dopey*, flaky*, foolish, fried*, giddy, half-baked*, idiotic, inane, insane, in the ozone, lunatic, mad, mental*, nuts, nutty*, off the wall, out of one's gourd, ridiculous, screwy*, silly, simple, touched, unbalanced, unhinged*, unsound, wacky, whacko, witless

hmmmm, I like a few of these.  I see nutty is in there so that qualifies.  So "whacko" and "nutty" are legit. 

As for perjorative, anytime you use words with the intent of belittling or disparaging, you are using those terms in the perjorative.  Calling someone unthinking or irrational is not a compliment.  It might be more sophisticated, but using "unthinking" or "whacko" are in the same camp.  The camp of the stupid. 

The words whacko and nutty can be used perjoratively or not.  The same is true for unthinking and irrational.  All have perjorative connotations.  It's a matter of opinion which may be "worse" and certainly it's a matter of style.   I think you're splitting hairs.  It's like arguing that there is a polite way to tell someone they are stupid morons as opposed to just saying it outright.  I dunno, an insult is an insult.  But I like sounding like a hack sometimes.  So whacko and nutcases and the like will do it for me.