corleonebrother: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: corleonebrother: OneBornFree, Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories? Who, or what, do you consider to be "the 9/11 Truth movement"? Anyone claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, i.e. not masterminded by Bin Laden.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: corleonebrother: OneBornFree, Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories? Who, or what, do you consider to be "the 9/11 Truth movement"?
corleonebrother: OneBornFree, Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories?
OneBornFree,
Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories?
Who, or what, do you consider to be "the 9/11 Truth movement"?
Anyone claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, i.e. not masterminded by Bin Laden.
In my opinion, all movements end up suppressing genuine searches for truth. The bigger they become, the more they suppress.
This is inevitable , given "the truths" of Austrian praxeology, [i.e "methodological individualism"] , as far as I can see.
People both within and outside the group who try to question established "groupthink" are therefor labelled "disinfo- agents" with "faulty theories" , or just plain "looney", etc. etc. as they are seen as a threat to the groups agenda/goals, by individuals within it who have given up their own individual search for truth for "the greater good" of spreading the particular line of "groupthink" considered marketable to most outsiders in order attract more members and achieve some imagined political/social end goal.
The "911 Truth movement" is no different , which is why I am part of no movement , for "911 Truth", or for anything else.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Laughing Man: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Unfortunately, yes. For a useful result, it is vital that you should make no assumptions one way or another at the outset of your investigation as to truth or falsity of any of the information or "evidence" supplied by myself [or whomever] and then reviewed by yourself - and make no assumptions/ conclusions as to truth or falsity until all [or at least the vast majority] of evidence is in and has been closely analyzed. In my own mind [at least!] that would be a methodologically correct procedure to undertake when reviewing any/all purported "facts" and "evidence" about 911. [At least for someone interested in scientific investigation and procedure] You cannot assume that I, or anyone else is telling the truth- you must remain neutral throughout and only draw conclusions once all the evidence is in and has been closely looked at , weighed against other evidence , then accepted or rejected accordingly. I don't think you are understanding the definition of circular logic.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Unfortunately, yes. For a useful result, it is vital that you should make no assumptions one way or another at the outset of your investigation as to truth or falsity of any of the information or "evidence" supplied by myself [or whomever] and then reviewed by yourself - and make no assumptions/ conclusions as to truth or falsity until all [or at least the vast majority] of evidence is in and has been closely analyzed. In my own mind [at least!] that would be a methodologically correct procedure to undertake when reviewing any/all purported "facts" and "evidence" about 911. [At least for someone interested in scientific investigation and procedure] You cannot assume that I, or anyone else is telling the truth- you must remain neutral throughout and only draw conclusions once all the evidence is in and has been closely looked at , weighed against other evidence , then accepted or rejected accordingly.
Unfortunately, yes.
For a useful result, it is vital that you should make no assumptions one way or another at the outset of your investigation as to truth or falsity of any of the information or "evidence" supplied by myself [or whomever] and then reviewed by yourself - and make no assumptions/ conclusions as to truth or falsity until all [or at least the vast majority] of evidence is in and has been closely analyzed.
In my own mind [at least!] that would be a methodologically correct procedure to undertake when reviewing any/all purported "facts" and "evidence" about 911. [At least for someone interested in scientific investigation and procedure]
You cannot assume that I, or anyone else is telling the truth- you must remain neutral throughout and only draw conclusions once all the evidence is in and has been closely looked at , weighed against other evidence , then accepted or rejected accordingly.
I don't think you are understanding the definition of circular logic.
That's the least of my problems
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: corleonebrother: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: corleonebrother: OneBornFree, Do you think there are any disinformation agents working within the 9/11 Truth movement trying to discredit the movement by pushing faulty theories? Who, or what, do you consider to be "the 9/11 Truth movement"? Anyone claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, i.e. not masterminded by Bin Laden. In my opinion, all movements end up suppressing genuine searches for truth. The bigger they become, the more they suppress. This is inevitable , given "the truths" of Austrian praxeology, [i.e "methodological individualism"] , as far as I can see. People within the group who try to question established "groupthink" are therefor labelled "disinfo- agents" with "faulty theories" , or just plain "looney", etc. etc. as they are seen as a threat to the groups agenda/goals, by individuals within it who have given up their own individual search for truth for "the greater good" of spreading the particular line of "groupthink" considered marketable to most outsiders in order attract more members and achieve some imagined political/social end goal. The "911 Truth movement" is no different , which is why I am part of no movement , for "911 Truth", or for anything else.
People within the group who try to question established "groupthink" are therefor labelled "disinfo- agents" with "faulty theories" , or just plain "looney", etc. etc. as they are seen as a threat to the groups agenda/goals, by individuals within it who have given up their own individual search for truth for "the greater good" of spreading the particular line of "groupthink" considered marketable to most outsiders in order attract more members and achieve some imagined political/social end goal.
OK let me rephrase. Do you think there is anyone out there who is being paid to appear to be honestly searching for answers to the unanswered questions of 9/11, but with the covert aim of "poisoning the well", to provide easy fodder for the "debunkers" like Popular Mechanics to attack, and fool the masses into believing that ALL claims that 9/11 was an inside job are false, ridiculous, and not worth investigating?
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
corleonebrother: OK let me rephrase. Do you think there is anyone out there who is being paid to appear to be honestly searching for answers to the unanswered questions of 9/11, but with the covert aim of "poisoning the well", to provide easy fodder for the "debunkers" like Popular Mechanics to attack, and fool the masses into believing that ALL claims that 9/11 was an inside job are false, ridiculous, and not worth investigating?
Yes, of course, that seems pretty much inevitable , given human nature, governments etc.
Welcome to the dark side. I think we are perfectly justified in asking for a new investigation.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: corleonebrother: OK let me rephrase. Do you think there is anyone out there who is being paid to appear to be honestly searching for answers to the unanswered questions of 9/11, but with the covert aim of "poisoning the well", to provide easy fodder for the "debunkers" like Popular Mechanics to attack, and fool the masses into believing that ALL claims that 9/11 was an inside job are false, ridiculous, and not worth investigating? Yes, of course, that seems pretty much inevitable , given human nature, governments etc.
So then would you agree that people like you and me - honest people trying to get people to question the official theory of 9/11 and get them to do their own research into 9/11 issues - have a kind of responsibility to do careful research to make sure we are not, accidentally, pushing the faulty theories that have been created by disinfo agents? If we do accidentally assert a falsehood, along with our true claims, it damages our whole case, would you agree?
I disagree. I have a responsibility to myself and no one else.
Although I try not to, if I "damage" my "case", with "falsehood" in the opinion of someone else, so be it.[Thats life]
As I said before, yours, or any one elses "911 truth movement" [or any other movement] is of no interest to me, because all movements consisting of more than one person will fail ultimately.
I am a single person - I act/ think alone, for myself only, so please leave me out of all of your imagined "our whole case" scenarios [Nothing personal!- and thank you for your questions! ]
twistedbydsign99: .....I think we are perfectly justified in asking for a new investigation.
.....I think we are perfectly justified in asking for a new investigation.
etc. etc. etc.
PS ' loved the "we"!
Seriously though, many investigations have been carried out by independently thinking individuals over the last 8.5 years .
The most thorough review of the evidence in my own opinion was done by lone researcher Simon Shack in a presentation called "September Clues".
Fake Plane Animations- Fake Building Collapse Animations
That movie shows [conclusively in my own opinion] that the "planes into towers" videos and live TV feeds are/were all faked on computers, as were the collapse sequences.
In other words, what you saw on TV on 911 was just one vast computer animation, a Hollywood fabrication, NOT "live , as it happened ", TV.
OneBornFree - I'm sorry to have made an assumption about what you are doing here. I thought you were trying to get the fence-sittters to consider the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job with an open mind. Perhaps you could clarify what goal you are hoping to acheive by posting about 9/11 in these forums? Thanks.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:all movements consisting of more than one person will fail ultimately.
Would you mind elaborating on this please? I'm not sure what you mean.
I do believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There is so much evidence supporting the "conspiracy" theory. I skimmed through a book published and written by Popular Science that tried to debunk it. I merely laughed at it and put it back on the shelf. It didn't even cover half of the crucial evidence.
Someone here mentioned amateur videos. I saw a website that clearly showed how one was completely B.S. - I think CNN was involved with it.
jaredsmith: I do believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There is so much evidence supporting the "conspiracy" theory. I skimmed through a book published and written by Popular Science that tried to debunk it. I merely laughed at it and put it back on the shelf. It didn't even cover half of the crucial evidence. Someone here mentioned amateur videos. I saw a website that clearly showed how one was completely B.S. - I think CNN was involved with it.
I looked at that video and, actually, I had forgotten about it. I remember thinking to myself years ago after looking at it on YouTube, "Wow, the nose went through mostly intact, that's incredible." However, there's still problems with chain-of-custody... perhaps this video is not the original one that was broadcast. I don't know. Anyway, there is no doubt that there is a bunch of funny-business surrounding 9/11 (and the 7/7 bombing). The accepted conspiracy theory is almost certainly false.
Clayton -
corleonebrother: OneBornFree - I'm sorry to have made an assumption about what you are doing here. I thought you were trying to get the fence-sittters to consider the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job with an open mind. Perhaps you could clarify what goal you are hoping to acheive by posting about 9/11 in these forums? Thanks. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:all movements consisting of more than one person will fail ultimately. Would you mind elaborating on this please? I'm not sure what you mean.
"Perhaps you could clarify what goal you are hoping to acheive by posting about 9/11 in these forums? Thanks."
Mostly self- entertainment for when business gets slow [it helps to keep my thinking analysis skills sharp for real-world, paying clients] .
"all movements consisting of more than one person will fail ultimately-Would you mind elaborating on this please? I'm not sure what you mean."
It means: if you want to be free and live a freer life, don't join groups, don't try to think like a group, don't subvert your own interests to achieve imagined group goals etc. etc.
Forget groups , and forget saving the world with "waking up the people" campaigns for " 911 truth" or similar.
Just learn to save yourself [ from all of the groups ]
Regards, onebornfree.
jaredsmith:I skimmed through a book published and written by Popular Science that tried to debunk it. I merely laughed at it and put it back on the shelf. It didn't even cover half of the crucial evidence.
I looked at that video and, actually, I had forgotten about it. I remember thinking to myself years ago after looking at it on YouTube, "Wow, the nose went through mostly intact, that's incredible." However, there's still problems with chain-of-custody... perhaps this video is not the original one that was broadcast. I don't know. Anyway, there is no doubt that there is a bunch of funny-business surrounding 9/11 (and the 7/7 bombing). The accepted conspiracy theory is almost certainly false. Clayton -
You are apparently unaware that ,for example the Fox network edited its own archives in around mid 2007 to hide the 1.36 sec. long "nose out" sequence I believe you are thinking of.
Mirror sites for a while kept the original 1.36 clip intact online, but legal pressure from Fox forced even them to remove it.
The full, original as broadcast, "nose out" sequence ,as shown "live" on Fox on the morning of 911, and minutes later on CNN , is closely analyzed , frame by frame, in the 911 movie "September Clues", indeed that 1.36sec sequence is one of the main subjects of this movie.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:It means: if you want to be free and live a freer life, don't join groups, don't try to think like a group, don't subvert your own interests to achieve imagined group goals etc. etc.
Especially don't belong to the group of people not belonging to any group!
Terrific... yet another bunch of looney Truthers, here on Mises.
Are you guys actually trying to talk someone out of believing what his friends saw with their own eyes?
tfr000: Terrific... yet another bunch of looney Truthers, here on Mises. Are you guys actually trying to talk someone out of believing what his friends saw with their own eyes?
No trying to get a new investigation. So with your friends eyes did he happen to see who paid for the attacks?
I don't have the good fortune of being a close friend with any eyewitness of 9/11, so, I have to go off the documentation, etc. Anecdotes don't make the cut.
The special theories about 9/11 are nearly numberless. It would be impossible to completely answer and explore ever question to the satisfaction of half the people who are in the truth movment . I have had several discussions with "truthers". For every question answered three to take its place. There is also a certain level absurdity in expecting every single question to be exhaustively explored before accepting something.
I think two great examples of this type are, the planes and thermite. At first it was denied that a plane hit one of the towers. Than that theory was found fruitless and abandoned. Then as thermite was explained, the theorists came up with a more powerful form called super thermite.
My position, the planes hit the towers transferring tremendous amounts of energy to the structure. The explosion sent fuel, fire and heat down the structure further stressing it. The whole is greator than the sum of the parts. You have heat, fire, energy and weight. The towers could withstand any one or two parts but not all them combined.
If you reject that and must believe something else I ask what is easier. To believe that buildings where not as strong as they claimed or that there is secret government conspiracy?
I doubt we could ever know that for sure one way or another but we do know that the CIA has the process down to go into other countries and infiltrate Newspaper/TV/Radio to reach whatever goals they have at the time. If they can do it in other countries they could easily do it in their own.
It's worse then that, since onefreeborn thinks the planes didn't even hit the towers, besides the thousands of people in New York City who saw it 9 years ago.
I remember 8 years ago when I believed some of this trash.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
The fake planes thing is just a strawman, probably just purposeful disinfo strawman.
Certainly you don't fall for the "fake planes theory is false, therefore the government's story must be true" fallacy?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Forget groups , and forget saving the world with "waking up the people" campaigns for " 911 truth" or similar. Just learn to save yourself [ from all of the groups ]
It is in my personal interest to get more people to research 9/11, and eventually to realise the official story is a total lie.
Why? Because 9/11 is an example of the use of Problem-Reaction-Solution. This technique is how governments increase their power; Leviathan grows out of crises. Problem-Reaction-Solution requires that people think the problem is real, and that the government can solve it. If the people were to realise that governments, in fact, create most of these problems, so that they can increase their power, then this technique would be rendered ineffective. Wars and police-state measures are always justified by governments as defensive, and usually they follow not real attacks, but either false-flag, facilitated or fabricated attacks. See World War One, World War Two, and Vietnam, for examples.
The U.S. government orchestrated a false-flag attack that killed almost 3,000 individuals on 9/11. Luckily, I was not one of them, and neither was anyone in my family. But next time I might not be so lucky.
The only way to prevent a ‘next time’ is to somehow make people aware of how governments really operate, how Problem-Reaction-Solution works, and how the truth about government’s involvement in crimes like 9/11 is suppressed afterwards. Trying to get people to look at the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is a form of self-defense on my part. Only with a mass awakening to the truth can we hope to prevent future false-flag events.
So my personal goal is to get as many people as possible to examine the evidence of 9/11 with an open mind. I have spent a long time thinking about and researching the most effective ways to do this. What exactly is it that stops people from looking at the evidence? I have a fairly good idea what the answer to this question is, but I’d like to ask people here who think Bin Laden masterminded the attacks:
corleonebrother:Have you ever Googled “9/11 truth” or “9/11 conspiracy”? If not, why not?
Yes.
corleonebrother:If you have, what convinced you that those who claim 9/11 was an inside job are wrong?
The ignorance and absurdity of the arguments. Most of them are right up there with Rosie O'Donnell's "It was the first time fire ever melted steel." Occam's razor, people.
As others here have stated, I don't need some absurd fairy tale to convince me that statism is out of control.
tfr000:Occam's razor, people.
K it was a demolition.
You aren't going to find anything in any timely matter, any evidence that existed was destroyed.
tfr000: corleonebrother:Have you ever Googled “9/11 truth” or “9/11 conspiracy”? If not, why not? Yes. corleonebrother:If you have, what convinced you that those who claim 9/11 was an inside job are wrong? The ignorance and absurdity of the arguments. Most of them are right up there with Rosie O'Donnell's "It was the first time fire ever melted steel." Occam's razor, people. As others here have stated, I don't need some absurd fairy tale to convince me that statism is out of control.
Yet it seems as if you are taking dozens if not hundreds of different opinions on what happened on the day of 9/11 and putting them against a singular theory that the government and media has sold, which is full of contradictions within itself I should add (I'm not sure if you are aware). Your thinking on this is logically flawed. You should be looking at each and every opinion on the issue and compare them individually with the government's story just being one of the many.
[all non-official conspiracy theories combined] vs. [government's singular theory] is a logical fallacy and exactly the purpose of the disinfo that you seem to have bought into.
It would be the same thing as discrediting anarcho-capitalism on the basis that some other random anarchist came across as being bat-shit crazy.
tfr000: corleonebrother:If you have, what convinced you that those who claim 9/11 was an inside job are wrong? The ignorance and absurdity of the arguments. Most of them are right up there with Rosie O'Donnell's "It was the first time fire ever melted steel." Occam's razor, people.
Thanks for answering. Would you mind giving me an idea of what arguments you have mind?
1: The claim that "It was the first time fire ever melted steel."
Libertyandlife: It's worse then that, since onefreeborn thinks the planes didn't even hit the towers, besides the thousands of people in New York City who saw it 9 years ago. I remember 8 years ago when I believed some of this trash.
What did you believe 8 years ago and what led you to believe it's trash?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Austrian Economist and LVMI adjunct scholar Dr. Morgan Reynolds on the "collapse due to burning jet fuel" hypothesis: "..... ..Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it: •Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor). •By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes. •The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires. •FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order. •Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk. Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts: 1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11. 2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small. 3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. 4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9). 5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. 6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence." 7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. ..............." quotes excerpted from "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse"
Austrian Economist and LVMI adjunct scholar Dr. Morgan Reynolds on the "collapse due to burning jet fuel" hypothesis:
"..... ..Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:
..............." quotes excerpted from "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse"
I see before me a cavalcade of recycled truther dishonesty. The shock of this epiphany has woken me up! I'll be sure to order my "9/11 was an inside job!" t-shirt right away, so that I can line the pockets of Dylan Avery and friends. WE ARE CHANGE!
Well one is that it is ridiculous and a paranoid assumption to begin with. I also believed in socialism at the time.
Libertyandlife: Well one is that it is ridiculous and a paranoid assumption to begin with. I also believed in socialism at the time.
Me too. What assumption?
Given the state's complicity in much greater acts of terror (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, etc.) and its intimate involvement with the criminal underworld generally and terrorist groups particularly (al-Qaeda is best thought of as a creature of the CIA and ISI), no assumptions are required to suspect the State may have been involved in 9/11. As Rothbard explained, the State is essentially criminal... it is nothing but a band of thugs. Understood in its proper light, it is hardly paranoid to suspect the State's involvement in any act of terror. If you live in Little Italy and you see a local merchant's shop burnt down and riddled with bullet holes, it's not a big stretch to suspect that Capone may very well have ordered the hit for failure to pay protection fees, rather than that a vandal from some other part of the city roaming through randomly decided to burn that particular shop down and shoot it full of holes. People rarely act without a reason, motive and goal. The State's theories of terrorist plots often boil down to deus ex machina acts of fiat terror. After awhile, these 2-dimensional comic-book terrorist stories being served up by the propaganda machine start to get a little repetitive.
That's a very good point Clayton. We know that man acts purposefully, and it is hard to believe that the state acts without the purpose it usually brings about.
Marc Stevens makes a really good point about those people who argue that the state is incompetent. If you're still paying taxes to them, then they are not incompetent.
Also, I find it odd when some libertarians try to play the state as incompetent card, when we know the incentives are for them to act recklessly and dangerously, not to make mistakes chasing noble purpose.
It's not entirely insane to believe in conspiracy theories when the state grows in power during times of purported national emergency. And in some cases the conspiracy theorists are correct. Nixon's waging of a secret war in Laos and Cambodia is a confirmed example, and the US government's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor is a likely one. The fact that the US government grew after 9/11 and therefore increased in power does give motive, but I don't think they're capable of hiding such a plot. Even Nixon's war in Cambodia and Laos was an open secret; anybody working at a DoD office would have heard about it. An independent investigation will likely reveal a massive amount of blundering rather than some sinister plot. If this were a trial I'd assume innocence until guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There would be a profound impact if the majority were ever to believe that the government orchestrated the death of 3,000 of its own citizens. We're much more comfortable with the government killing foreigners. And I don't think the profound change would be peaceful or along lines consistent with the beliefs of most members of this site. So perhaps even if the government did do it, and personally I think it didn't, wouldn't feigning ignorance perhaps prevent a systemic shock to society?
CrazyCoot:I don't think they're capable of hiding such a plot.
Why not? They were capable of fabricating the Vietnam war, which we only found out about the Gulf of Tonkin iirc through a FOIA request that was looking for something else.
Look, if these guys couldn't pull that off (I'm not saying they did) then how do they con millions of people into voting, or paying taxes? How do they con millions of people into supporting the first and second gulf wars?
I'm not saying America doesn't have enemies. But when 19 people kill 3000, does that really necessitate a multi-trillion dollar war with tens of thousands wounded and thousands dead, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and decades of military occupation?
Joe Six Pack supported the wars, and many still do almost a decade later.
This notion that the state couldn't pull it off gives too much credit to Joe Six Pack in my opinion.
this is a fearful event that i want to forget.
Point is that the conspiracy behind the Gulf of Tonkin was discovered, and the public didn't start attacking government buildings when it found out. I happen to believe the public's reaction upon discovering that the government was responsible for 9/11 would likely be so chaotic and violent as to dissuade the government from considering such a plot. The public's reaction when it comes to conspiracies involving state attacks on foreigners, and engineering coups in foreign lands and state attacks on its own citizens are very different, and the I believe the state realizes this. I'll agree that the state is morally capable of such an act, but the idea that they would take such a risk seems unlikely.
CrazyCoot:Point is that the conspiracy behind the Gulf of Tonkin was discovered
Yeah, 30 years later.
CrazyCoot:and the public didn't start attacking government buildings when it found out.
???
CrazyCoot:I happen to believe the public's reaction upon discovering that the government was responsible for 9/11 would likely be so chaotic and violent as to dissuade the government from considering such a plot.
If the government really feared the people, they would not be collecting taxes and handing out bailouts. Capitol hill politicians laugh about the Tea Parties. I think you give Joe Six Pack too much credit.
CrazyCoot:I'll agree that the state is morally capable of such an act, but the idea that they would take such a risk seems unlikely.
But they have taken such a risk in WWI, and Vietnam. That's my point. All of these wars are contrived. The government does it constantly. This notion that 9/11 couldn't be contrived because the government doesn't have it in them doesn't make any sense.
Again, I don't know that they did or did not do it. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did. They have a history of doing such things.
"But they have taken such a risk in WWI, and Vietnam. That's my point. All of these wars are contrived. The government does it constantly. This notion that 9/11 couldn't be contrived because the government doesn't have it in them doesn't make any sense.
Again, I don't know that they did or did not do it. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did. They have a history of doing such things."
I don't think it's accurate to base your assumptions on conspiracies involving attacks on foreign soil with an inside job by the government. There is a double standard when it comes to the public's reaction to conspiracies.