There are so many things that don't add up

I'm one of the dupes who buys the official line about September 11th.

By coincidence I've just finished reading Camille Tawil's Brothers In Arms. This is the story of Arab jihadists from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to last year. Tawil has interviewed ex jihadists and has employed other good sources to tell the story, which is more about the alliances and internal conflicts among the various groups that make up what is generally and lazily referred to as Al-Qaida than specifically about Sept 11.

However at no point do any of the jihadists, many of whom were displeased at the attack because of what it precipitated upon them, ever suggest that anyone other than bin Laden (although Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had the idea and was the prime mover) was responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers.

As for WTC 7, this seems to me to be a very reasonable explanation:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Just for the record I also accept that Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain were responsible for the London bombings.

We have something new to discuss at the next Massive meet. Until then...

Anything which does not add up I suspect to be no more than an attempt by the American government to make the scale of total fuck up look less their fault than it was. Especially because the Democrats warned the Republicans to keep an eye on the activities of Al Quaeda.

of the OP ("worth it", "fed") is music to conspiracy theorists' ears.

I just think our capacity to speculate has increased exponentially since the Internet came along while our ability to separate fact from opinion has decreased exponentially since the Internet came along.

Not having a go Vorgongod but I'm more sceptical about what motivates scepticism these days than anything else when it comes to events such as 9/11.

Oh I can go with that...

I don't have enough evidence to dispute what was seen.

Or my friend who was in the Pentagon on 9/11.

Or my friend in one of the intelligence agencies who holds the somewhat withering opinion that "we're not fucking smart enough to pull off a conspiracy like that. I'd be a lot fucking happier if we had that capability". He then tends to mutter some phrases under his breath.

is the truth.

Now the moon landings, on the other hand....

... contains some fine description of astroturfing; the process by which pr companies fake up grass roots activism to benefit their clients. Given that Lord Lawson refuses to say who funds his sceptical think tank, I am afraid all of my scepticism goes to who or what company is motivating and paying for his activities and why.

thanks carl for the link.

Originally in Rolling Stone:

http://eppinger.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/the-hopeless-stupidity-of-9-...

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

...where this decade-old topic has NEVER quite gone away, I implore Fraser to pull the plug on the thread, show everyone to the various corners of the internet where this discussion might be better suited, and please let the rest of us get on with our lives.

However, the benefits to the American miliatary juggernaut, the fear that lead people to line up behind the flag and the economic benefits of setting up security checks, additional scanners at airports and all the paraphernalia associated with fighting the terrorist threat have had tangible benefits to the American economy. This may potentially lead them to try and hatch a plot similar to this in the future. Just as the Russian Government was allegedly responsible for some of the 'Chechen' attacks in Moscow. Every American administration must have a bogey man. A bigger potential conspiracy is that Bin Laden is actually dead but the pretence that he is not effectively keeps the US population subjugated.

has a chapter on this. The conspiracy theory is just bunkum. Just imagine it is true, think how many people must be in on it. And not one have them have admitted to it. Meanwhile, the US and UK government can't prevent Wikileaks getting hold of thousands of pages of secure documentation.

that it was nearly ten years ago now. Thats the only thing I find hard to accept about 9\11.

I fell into the sconspiracy theories soon after it happened in the fog of war on terror but I hold Paul Greengrass' (director of 'United 93') POV that its more comforting to believe that its a conspiracy and government plot rather than considering that all these safeguards and safety nets we put in place are totally worthless up against the determination of evil forces to fuck you up.

But I've been told to keep them to myself. Sorry.

over 3,000 people were murdered by a bunch of (mainly Saudi) maniacs in a well orchestrated terrorist plot masterminded by Bin Laden's organisation. The rest, as they say, is conversation.

Vorongod, it was a controlled demolition, no question. As to who, it's complex, but I've been looking at this for 6 years now, and I'm not buying the official line. And I'm perfectly sane. I could go on...

I heartily concur.

you've all researched this thoroughly before believing what you hear on the news? Good, I wouldn't want to think you were suggestible or anything. I think I've probably read more Aaronovitch than you have David Ray Griffin! Now Fraser, where's the 'resolved threads' link?

let's assume you are right, and there was a conspiracy. So what are you going to do?
Seriously. Yes you will be upset, and so will a lot of other people, but what do you expect will happen? The people hypothetically responsible are no longer in power.
Do you expect riots in the streets to replace the government that was democratically elected (in the USA and UK) to replace those responsible? Do you think we would leave Iraq and Afghanistan immediately? If all the political parties are in on the conspiracy, what could possibly change?
Believing in conspiracy theories does not empower you. It makes you paranoid, threatened and faced by overwhelming odds (even if you are right).
If you want to change the world, try getting elected. It takes between 2 and 3 thousand votes to become a councillor round my home. Not impossible.
If you want to be part of a small group of people who know the truth and want the world to change without a vote - what makes you any different from the people you believe run the conspiracies?

Me, I believe in the cock up theory. That and the fact that until 9/11 highjacked planes landed so the terrorists could negotiate a hostage exchange - that's why they were not shot down.

...but is Paul really dead?

but Stig has been dead for ages really honest

*Shakes head and sighs*

My own take is that 1) government is just as dysfunctional and chaotic as any company you've ever worked in, so there's a massive degree of cock-ups, crossed wires, disorganisation etc. The chances of them being able to organise a plot this byzantine, pull it off and keep it secret is non-existent.
2) Sceptics jump on every inconsistency from different accounts. But if you ever speak to anybody who's been involved in disasters (in my social circle - Hillsborough, The Marchioness and 7/7) the overriding sense you get is that a lot of extremely strange things happen in these situations, people and objects don't behave like you think they will, people's memories are extremely unreliable and nothing slots together into a neat narrative.
3) The Popular Mechanics point-by-point debunking of almost every aspect of the various conspiracies is a superb and very sober piece of journalism. And all the more powerful for being done by a bunch of dull blokes in drip-dry shirts, rather than some tedious Michael Moore type.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
4) The Vanity Fair piece analysing the NORAD tapes from 9/11 is similarly instructive as to how chaotic things were on the day. Short version - air traffic control were running clapped out, cold war-era equipment which worked on the assumption that an attack would come over the Atlantic and was as good as useless once a plane was inside the country.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

What interests me about those who, as here, stick with the 'official story' is the slightly shrill denunciation of those who question it and subsequent attempt to portray them as unhinged. This is done largely by the use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' which due to mad theories about moon landings and lizards has become a term of ridicule. They then proceed to make bad jokes about the aforementioned reptiles. If a crime is committed by more than one person, it is a conspiracy. Hence the suggestion that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. (Trouble is, the FBI admit there is no evidence!) But what is proposed (and this is not, despite some bizarre assertions, a comforting idea) is that it was a false flag attack, for which there is plenty of historical precedent. Look it up. Until you accept that there is a rational, adult exchange of opinions to be had, backed up by looking at the evidence for both sides, this is going rapidly nowhere. Pity the massive are not always as open-minded as they would like to think.

for an event of this scale?

"Pity the massive are not always as open-minded as they would like to think."

That argument was put to me by my, at the time, born again Christian parents when I admitted I was an atheist and refused to attend mass anymore.

It has been used to me by climate change deniers, far right sympathisers, and all types of people whose beliefs are, shall I say somewhat "fringe." There is such a thing as being too open minded and the internet encourages it. Because other people believe stuff and post it online does not make it true.

Again, what is more likely? The Americans were lax in their security to the point that a shower of religious loons got lucky, allowing for some subsequent political opportunism to take place? To me that's plausible. The Americans knew what was coming and deliberately made it worse? That's nonsense. The Americans did it all? That's mental. Large institutions are not capable of planning events of that nature in total secrecy and then keep them secret afterwards and chaos is hard to completely untangle. This does not mean anything.

Let's take one proposition of yours:
"Large institutions are not capable of planning events of that nature in total secrecy"
The Manhattan Project, the building of the atomic bomb, in WW2 was secret and involved about 130,000 people. So not an accurate statement.
Something of the nature of 9/11 would clearly not be a government operation, but would have to involve a relatively small number of people in various places within the government, military, secret services etc. Think about compartmentalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)
This is how the CIA for instance will operate, it's standard practice. So before you make sweeping statements about such an issue you have to look at what is feasible. This is feasible. I'm not, repeat not, saying I know what happened, I'm saying there is a lot, if you take the time to look, which doesn't add up. If you are not interested, you won't look.

for God's sake, there was no sodding 9/11 conspiracy. It seems as though there are still some out there who could do with a bit more intellectual and historical rigour and less poncing around the internet giving credence to any crank with 5 mins to spare. In this instance, just because something might have happened does not mean it did and as far as Clinton (under whose presidency, Bin Laden's organisation was allowed to grow unchecked despite intelligence warnings) and Bush's presidency is concerned, the cock up theory is far more apposite. In addition to Aaronivitch's book which is good enough, I would also recommend the following:-
- American Ground by William Langewiesche; reporting on the actual event and of the highest order.
- The Looming Tower by Lawrence Freedman.

A cell of religious fundamentalists. Not CIA agents.

I also recommend the Lawrence Wright book

An example of intellectual rigour?

I'm a member of an F1 forum. When Nelson Piquet Jr crashed at Singapore 2008, benefiting his team-mate Fernando Alonso, a couple of people suggested he'd done so deliberately, and were quicly and viciously ridiculed as 'foilhats' and conspiracy-theorists by the vast majority. Of course, it later emerged that he had indeed crashed deliberately.

I disagree with Jayhawk with regards to 9/11, but he's right to point out that the majority tends to take the offical line and ridicule doubters.

... is it safe to talk about the Rutles again...?

I enjoy a conspiracy theory. They make you think and ultimately it's great to question the official line.
I usually fall behind the official line, but only after weighing up the arguments and this is mainly thanks to those tireless theorists.

My question to the Massive to help push this into more general waters - has a conspiracy theory ever been suggested and then proved to be true?
Or have I missed the point of them completely?

Jimmyshoes above, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, too -- in an urban mythy sort of way -- and as Lucifer Sam says, they're good, they make you think. Until I read this thread I had no idea they wound people up so much.

My first post in ages and it's a double.

in these 9/11 conspiracy theories: "Look these bloody Arabs, couldn't possibly have the where-with-all to carry out such a complex task. MMMmmmm, so if it wasn't Johnny Foreigner, it must be a bunch of highly competent WASPs, Like us...No hang on, it WAS us. We're the ONLY people smart enough to pull this off"

Jayhawk is such a wag.

... I think it's much more interesting to consider why people believe the things they do, rather than what they believe (after all, as more than one poster has commented, these types of threads never seem to settle any thorny questions).

Why do people reject theories which have huge scientific, evidence-based and logical backing (eg evolution) but accept other theories for which there is no such backing (eg creationism)? You could make the same point for all sorts of alternative medicines, psychic phenomena, "belief systems" etc.

I think it's to do with the way our brains are hard-wired, our sense of loyalty to our immediate fellow humans, and the setting of precedent (say the media, which feeds us a steady stream of conspiracy theory films, shadowy-government agent TV series, and psychic/ghost stories).

As long as the people who actually make serious decisions affecting the rest of us, only do so on the basis of evidence and logic (oh dear ...)

...can everyone stop it please. Conspiracy ? Get a grip. Move on. Now.