The official conspiracy theory of 9/11

[thegreekdog]

As for not caring, it has cost trillions, led to trillions more being spent, allowed for the TSA, unwarranted wiretapping, torture, several wars, indefinite detention in black site prisons, drone strikes, privatization of war, prisons, security using public funds.

It calls into question democracy, the morality of our leadership, the legitimacy of government, the legitimacy in taxation, the value of capitalism, of freedom, of our ability to have justice.

If the government let this happen to enrich and empower themselves and their friends, we must then question how the government rewards itself and sponsors in other events such as the financial crisis. The banks caused it and are rewarded. In healthcare: they caused the problems and are rewarded for them.

It actually begs the question of the purpose of government in reality vs propaganda. I can't see how you could not care except that you wish to protect a worldview that isn't true. You cling to a false reality in fear of being called insane, in fear of change, in fear of people like Andy who won't respond to any of the clear scientific data, but merely creates a strawman and splits.

The world's the same place whether or not you perceive it to be different than it is. In the long run, clinging to a false reality because it's easy is not going to benefit you or anyone.

Yeah, but I thought all those things before 9/11 and I would think them even if 9/11 had not occurred. Let's just take your list (assuming everything is accurate) and pretend 9/11 had not occurred:

(1) Cost trillions of dollars of damage - would not be a problem if 9/11 had not occurred.
(2) Cost trillions of dollars to be spent on response - The US military spends a lot of money already and always manage to find an excuse, so I say this would have occurred regardless of 9/11.
(3) TSA - still would have happened
(4) Unwarranted wiretapping and torture - still would have happened
(5) Drone strikes and wars - still would have happened
(6) Indefinite detention in black site prisons - still would have happened
(7) Privatization of war - still would have happened
(8) Government enriching its friends - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (still would have happened)

So I think that's why I don't care. All of these things (other than the first) would have happened regardless of whether 9/11 occurred or not. How do I know this? Because we've killed everyone involved with the 9/11 attacks and we're still doing all of those things. And because most of these things occurred prior to 9/11. If we mark down dates and we think about what happened prior to 2001 and what happened subsequent to 2011, I think we come to the conclusion that all of these things were either occuring prior to 2001 (e.g. government enriching its friends or unwarranted wire tapping and torture or trillions of dollars on defense) and all of these things are ocurring subsequent to 2011.

[mrswdk]

All of those things need some sort of stimulus or pretext. You don't just go drone strike a Pakistani wedding for no reason whatsoever, and you can't just rent-seek on behalf of your friends without any pretext whatsoever (in a land of public disclosure and freedom of information).

[_sabotage_]

As for not caring, it has cost trillions, led to trillions more being spent, allowed for the TSA, unwarranted wiretapping, torture, several wars, indefinite detention in black site prisons, drone strikes, privatization of war, prisons, security using public funds.

It calls into question democracy, the morality of our leadership, the legitimacy of government, the legitimacy in taxation, the value of capitalism, of freedom, of our ability to have justice.

If the government let this happen to enrich and empower themselves and their friends, we must then question how the government rewards itself and sponsors in other events such as the financial crisis. The banks caused it and are rewarded. In healthcare: they caused the problems and are rewarded for them.

It actually begs the question of the purpose of government in reality vs propaganda. I can't see how you could not care except that you wish to protect a worldview that isn't true. You cling to a false reality in fear of being called insane, in fear of change, in fear of people like Andy who won't respond to any of the clear scientific data, but merely creates a strawman and splits.

The world's the same place whether or not you perceive it to be different than it is. In the long run, clinging to a false reality because it's easy is not going to benefit you or anyone.

Yeah, but I thought all those things before 9/11 and I would think them even if 9/11 had not occurred. Let's just take your list (assuming everything is accurate) and pretend 9/11 had not occurred:

(1) Cost trillions of dollars of damage - would not be a problem if 9/11 had not occurred.
(2) Cost trillions of dollars to be spent on response - The US military spends a lot of money already and always manage to find an excuse, so I say this would have occurred regardless of 9/11.
Hard to defend. The US had no enemies, Bush's pleas to attack Iraq were unpopular.
(3) TSA - still would have happened
the quote, those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither comes to mind. Not because I'm agreeing with it, but because people don't give up their freedom for nothing, but they might for security.
(4) Unwarranted wiretapping and torture - still would have happened
Impossible to defend, but go ahead and try.
(5) Drone strikes and wars - still would have happened
Without 9/11 there would be a far greater outcry, the US would lack the most crucial element of war according to Sun Tzu: moral authority.
(6) Indefinite detention in black site prisons - still would have happened
Even with 9/11, there is very little support for them.
(7) Privatization of war - still would have happened
People don't just give up trillions of dollars and a more questioned war would have made it more difficult
(8) Government enriching its friends - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (still would have happened)

So I think that's why I don't care. All of these things (other than the first) would have happened regardless of whether 9/11 occurred or not. How do I know this? Because we've killed everyone involved with the 9/11 attacks and we're still doing all of those things. And because most of these things occurred prior to 9/11. If we mark down dates and we think about what happened prior to 2001 and what happened subsequent to 2011, I think we come to the conclusion that all of these things were either occuring prior to 2001 (e.g. government enriching its friends or unwarranted wire tapping and torture or trillions of dollars on defense) and all of these things are ocurring subsequent to 2011.

The PNAC report, written by many neocons who beau me part of the Bush admin did say they wanted all these things, but without a catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor, the process of transforming the US military and actions would be a long process ( and without a boogeyman, impossible).

[AndyDufresne]

I think the cynic in me agrees with TGD.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

By the way you responded, I assume you think that all of the current anti-terrorist activities in which the US engages in is a direct result of 9/11.

For example, you point out that in 2001 the United States had no enemies and therefore had to invent one. Ignoring that the United States did actually have enemies in 2001, the United States has enemies now who are not the people that carried out the 9/11 attacks.

For example, President Obama, whether implicitly or explicitly, came out against the Patriot Act and vowed to restrict it. But he hasn't. Why? Because of 9/11? The president has had every opportunity to either executively render the Patriot Act imponent or to call for its repeal. But he hasn't done it.

For example, the United States does not need moral authority for war. We have military bases in many countries and we have acted as the world's police since World War Two ended. 9/11 didn't change that and the deaths of the perpetrators of 9/11 hasn't changed it.

The bottom line, at least for me, is that throught the course of modern United States history (basically beginning with World War Two), the United States has been engaged in constructing the world's largest military with the largest presence the world has ever known to the benefit of the relevant rent-seekers and to the detriment of many. To suggest that the United States government needed 9/11 as a justification to, not begin, but continue that process is absurd. The United States government did not need 9/11 to justify making war on terrorists or to pander to special interests or to police the world. They did all those things before 2001 and are doing all those things after the death of bin Laden. Even with anti-war Democratic presidents who specifically ran for office on the planks of transparency and an end to war. And I haven't seen any potential presidential candidates (other than Rand Paul I suppose) come out differently either.

Again, this is why I don't care whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not. It is enough for me to rail against military spending, military presence, torture, wiretapping, a lack of privacy, and giving in to special interests. I don't need to believe 9/11 was a conspiracy and I certainly would not use it as proof in my arguments (mostly because it would make my arguments have less weight with the people I was trying to convince).

[thegreekdog]

All of those things need some sort of stimulus or pretext. You don't just go drone strike a Pakistani wedding for no reason whatsoever, and you can't just rent-seek on behalf of your friends without any pretext whatsoever (in a land of public disclosure and freedom of information).

Oh sure. What's the pretext now though? Is it still 9/11? Do we think ISIS is a vast conspiracy?

[_sabotage_]

The US had the Soviet boogeyman.

Currently, the US spends as much on military as the next 35 countries combined, all but two of which are allies.

The US has to justify these expenses to the public. They have used many false flags throughout history to do so.

After Reagan and Bush Sr, there was a growing rumbling over the deficit. Clinton cut spending and we saw our first surpluses in a long time. Clinton was the first president without the Soviet threat.

If we look at Vietnam, we were literally able to tell the president to resign and he did. Why would we need to go to war to get them on our side? We didn't. We went to war to sell weapons.

Hard to fight a war without an enemy. You can trying to alter history as much as you like but terrorism was a small blip on the screen before 9/11. Since, no terrorist plots have been uncovered to warrant the spending and yet it's still there.

Why do you assume that Obama had any intention of ending the patriot act? Because he said so in a speech that was popular with public opinion at the time? When have words spoken louder than actions?

You can't just say, Obama is forced to maintain the policies without showing bad guys. Please don't say he has been fighting Al Qaeda. It is documented that he supplied Al Qaeda with weapons to topple Qaddafi. Those weapons were then brought to Mali, enabling Canada and France to secure its resources with the excuse of Al Qaeda.

Biden has publicly stated their are no moderates in Syria. And yet the WH is sending weapons to moderates in Syria. These same weapons then turn up in the hands of the US's new threat, ISIS. USAID is then openly admitting to bribing ISIS so that ISIS may guide and distribute the aid to wherever they wish.

Recently, it came to light that in Turkey, the military had stopped and searched military intelligence vehicles and uncovered weapons which were being supplied to ISIS. The Turkish government then put a media ban on the information and charged the military personnel who searched the vehicle with espionage.

Are these the threats you speak of? Trained, armed, supplied and given a motive by the US?

I agree we should take action against these terrorists: stop supplying, arming, training and giving them a platform. And yet, they appear daily in our media, holding our weapons, with bellies full of our food, wallets fattened with our cash.

You say you don't care and it's just going to happen anyway. Well, can't beat apathy.

[thegreekdog]

You say you don't care and it's just going to happen anyway. Well, can't beat apathy.

Actually, that is not what I said. Maybe go back and read again. Hopefully that's not too much to ask. I wouldn't want to bog the conversation down.

[_sabotage_]

The only hope for America to get on the right track, to stop rent-seekers, to stop cronyism, to stop the wiretapping, to stop the torture, to stop all of it, is to become aware of how destructive it is.

If you are willing to dismiss the destructiveness as unimportant, you are dismissing the chance for change. If people assume that the government is looking out for their best interests, then the government can get away with whatever they want. When allowed to get away with whatever they want, the government does terrible things. This should encourage people to:

1. Become aware of the terrible things the government does,
2. Take the necessary measures to prevent them from doing it.

You are unwilling to become aware of what the government is doing and by default accept their conspiracy theory.

Since you are unaware of what they are doing, you have no means to stop it.

It's kind of hard to rail at military spending when you are of the belief that it is preventing tragedies instead of causing them.

[thegreekdog]

The only hope for America to get on the right track, to stop rent-seekers, to stop cronyism, to stop the wiretapping, to stop the torture, to stop all of it, is to become aware of how destructive it is.

If you are willing to dismiss the destructiveness as unimportant, you are dismissing the chance for change. If people assume that the government is looking out for their best interests, then the government can get away with whatever they want. When allowed to get away with whatever they want, the government does terrible things. This should encourage people to:

1. Become aware of the terrible things the government does,
2. Take the necessary measures to prevent them from doing it.

You are unwilling to become aware of what the government is doing and by default accept their conspiracy theory.

Since you are unaware of what they are doing, you have no means to stop it.

It's kind of hard to rail at military spending when you are of the belief that it is preventing tragedies instead of causing them.

I guess I need to say again - that's not what I said. While you may find it logical to jump from "TGD doesn't believe that the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks" to "TGD doesn't want things to change," I'm telling you, in no unclear terms, that this is precisely not what I'm saying.

For what it's worth (based on the discussion to date, very little apparently), I am aware of the terrible things the US government has done and continues to do and I act accordingly. What I don't do is hang my hat on conspiracy theories as the guiding force in my activities. Instead, I use rational debate and play in the same sandbox. Because if you don't play in the same sandbox, people can marginalize you. And that makes you irrelevant. And if you're irrelevant, you can yell and scream all you want they you're right and everyone else is stupid, and no one is going to listen to you (and to further complicate matters, they are more likely to listen to the people who you are fighting against).

[AndyDufresne]

I guess I need to say again - that's not what I said. While you may find it logical to jump from "TGD doesn't believe that the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks" to "TGD doesn't want things to change," I'm telling you, in no unclear terms, that this is precisely not what I'm saying.

TGD, I don't get it. What are you trying to say?




--Andy

[_sabotage_]

And I'm telling you in no unclear terms that if people believe that Arab fundamentalists have the power to bring down buildings with box cutters, then we will continue to support massive spending policies that lead to direct negative consequences.

If people understand that that money is being spent against them, to develop nano thermite, weaponized anthrax which is sent to dissenting parties, remote air control to guide terrorist attacks, that are used on them to take their money, then they will get rid of the system that does it.

If you can come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, you can come to terms with the media selling a false pre-determined narrative. They can come to terms with our regulating bodies acting against the public good.

If you see your government as fumbling fools who are trying to do good, you will tolerate them. If you see them as equivalent to the Nazis, you wouldn't.

In a hundred years, history will record us the same as it has recorded fascist Germans. That's pretty sad.

[thegreekdog]

It boggles the mind that this is hard for you to grasp. But I will keep trying.

Do I believe Arab fundamentalists can hijack a plane and bring buildings down with said planes (not box cutters... I don't believe someone could destroy a building with box cutters)?

Yes.

Do I support massive spending polices that lead to direct negative consequences?

No.

At the risk of... well, whatever... weren't there cell phone calls made by passengers of the airplanes to loved ones regarding the terrorists? How is that explained?

[_sabotage_]

Look, I'm happy to go into further detail. But I would like to establish stuff along the way.

Specifically, do you believe that terrorists caused WTC 7 to collapse due to fires spread from the collapse of the other trade centers?

[thegreekdog]

Look, I'm happy to go into further detail. But I would like to establish stuff along the way.

Specifically, do you believe that terrorists caused WTC 7 to collapse due to fires spread from the collapse of the other trade centers?

No idea. I believe that some guys hijacked some planes and crashed them into buildings in order to attack the United States in the interest of demonstrating that the United States should get out of their country.

And, again, I don't care. The 9/11 attacks do not justify the lengths to which the United States government has gone in terms of foreign wars, violating privacy rights, torture, and spending.

[_sabotage_]

So what is the point in continuing? I give you a thesis. You neither reject, accept it or care and yet you want to proceed? No point.

[thegreekdog]

So what is the point in continuing? I give you a thesis. You neither reject, accept it or care and yet you want to proceed? No point.

The point, as I said above, is that by standing by your thesis, you're marginalizing all your attendant arguments.

You and I agree that the United States should cease prosecuting foreign wars, should repeal the Patriot Act, should stop torture and illegal wiretapping, and should curb spending. But if we knew each other in real life, I would never associate myself with you because your belief about 9/11 marginalizes my point of view. No one will take you seriously. The general public will not take you seriously. Even if you do believe what you believe, just don't say it.

[_sabotage_]

I wouldn't take you seriously either. Your belief in a conspiracy theory that is impossible according to science would make me question your capacity for useful dialogue.

Your willingness to self censor wouldn't make you someone I would want to associate with.

[AndyDufresne]

Your willingness to self censor wouldn't make you someone I would want to associate with.

TGD, I'll still associate with you. But I confess, I've never been to Philadelphia and but I have had Philadelphia cream cheese.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Look, I'm happy to go into further detail. But I would like to establish stuff along the way.

Specifically, do you believe that terrorists caused WTC 7 to collapse due to fires spread from the collapse of the other trade centers?

If it's true that terrorists caused the collapse of the main towers, what sense would it make for the government to simultaneously destroy a much less important building hours later, after everyone had left the building? In your hypothesis, did they just blow up the building for shits and giggles?

[_sabotage_]

There was a lot of sensitive data in WTC 7. Particularly, the records for the money the US had used to buy up Russian infrastructure was set to reach its ten year audit.

The information was kept in two secure locations:

WTC 7 and the part of the Pentagon that exploded. All records destroyed.

[DaGip]

HORSE SHIT!

[mrswdk]

All of those things need some sort of stimulus or pretext. You don't just go drone strike a Pakistani wedding for no reason whatsoever, and you can't just rent-seek on behalf of your friends without any pretext whatsoever (in a land of public disclosure and freedom of information).

Oh sure. What's the pretext now though? Is it still 9/11? Do we think ISIS is a vast conspiracy?

Dunno. My point's just that even if those things would probably have happened even without 9/11, it doesn't automatically follow that 9/11 was for real. Maybe Iraq would have been invaded without the WMD intelligence, but that doesn't mean the WMD intelligence was genuine (in that case we now know it was bogus).

[mrswdk]

There was a lot of sensitive data in WTC 7. Particularly, the records for the money the US had used to buy up Russian infrastructure was set to reach its ten year audit.

How was that information so widely known about that every guy on Youtube knows about it and yet at the same time so secret that destroying a few servers in one building was enough to wipe it from the face of the earth?