This issue isn't going away...

[Guest]

poorly built rather than conspiracy.

[DEFCON]

‘They’ don’t want us to know the truth.

There's a ton of evidence in support of conspiracy out there today which makes it pretty difficult to fault the many professional organizations for advancing 911 theories that run contrary to the theme the authorities would have you believe. For instance; the authorities moved almost immediately after the fact to destroy all the physical evidence held in steel. In the absence of any meaningful explanation for that decision / direction, there's only other reasonable conclusion that can be reached; a decision was made to hide the facts from and deny the people of their truth.

[DEFCON]

I’m sorry Don, I missed your post #147 above somehow.

“But, let's say for discussion's sake that if 9/11 was an intentional, clandestine "arrangement" to murder US citizens using US aircraft hitting the primary US financial target? What then? What are the expectations? How will things change? Given history of past empires and rulers, even with the possibility of such an arrangement there is no epiphany here.”

The ‘expectations’ are those of and known only to the gang that may have been responsible. Fourteen years on now it seems fairly clear that the notion of freedom known to previous generations has now been replaced by fear and the perceived need for various giant in-house security apparatuses. Having never known the form of freedom their parents once did means younger generations will never miss it and by extension come to gradually accept economic enslavement along with other insults to the notion of their being a free people. Snowden was the proverbial 'canary in the mine'. With the creation of a world wide security industry, somebody’s got to be winning in a big way out there.

[J.O.]

I've always maintained that the Bush administration was nowhere near intelligent enough to come up with (or throw their support behind) such a scheme, never mind being able to successfully cover it up for over a decade. My mind wasn't changed by the Ed Asner documentary. While it raises some questions, it's so disjointed it's hard to watch. I've read commentary elsewhere that pointed out more holes in their account of the 9/11 events than a train load of Emental.

[boestar]

Personally I believe it was the catalyst that allowed the US Government to clamp down on the freedom of the populace. The people actually threw they support behind Acts that restricted freedom of movement and allowed the government unprecedented abilities to spy on its own citizens. These acts could never have happened without someone to blame. The American people rallied against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and allowed GW and friends to strip away civil rights and liberties from under the american peoples feet. All while the American people cheered.

I believe the last time something like that happened was when Hitler took power.

[Mitch Cronin]

Many people ask the wrong questions first. Imo, the first questions need to be aimed at finding who directed the whitewashed findings by the 911 commission and NIST. For instance, who told them to say "no explosive evidence was found" without also mentioning they hadn't looked?

...and then... once the analysts have had their go at identifying the brand of thermite that was used, who could have supplied it?... things like that all need to be answered before anyone can outright claim Bush and the boys are guilty.

[boestar]

"Guilty" is a matter of semantics. If it was indeed an inside job then there are several guilty parties acting on behalf of "Someone in power" with the Plausible Deniability falling with the oval office. The finger will never point there unless there is some unrefutable evidence that some moron forgot to delete.

The government in power at the time was not above fabricating an enemy. did they not fabricate evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction that never existed as an excuse to start a war? Killing a few thousand civilians would be a small price to pay to seize more power from the people.

I think that the controlled demolition theory speaks to an attempt to REDUCE the number affected by the "Attack" while still exacting as much physical damage as possible. The smaller explosive several years earlier did not gain the outrage necessary from the general public.

If someone like OBL could convince men to give their lives to a cause do you not think that a western leader could do the same?

[DEFCON]

If someone like OBL could convince men to give their lives to a cause do you not think that a western leader could do the same?”

Every time they hold a war / operation, the powers-to-be convince us the carnage that’s about to fall on someone’s head is justified, both politically and morally. Amongst other lies, both recent Gulf wars would seem to fit that scenario.