9-11 has maybe no conspiracy in itself, but just incompetency?

First of all I have to admit that I am biased on the subject, and I do believe that something strange happened on the 11th of September 2001. But I must also investigate the possibility that nothing special had happened. Since there are a lot of different views about what happened, let’s take a look together at the possibility of there being no conspiracy whatsoever. Is it possible to think that incompetence might be at the root of the subject at hand? Incompetence by the leaders at the time?

Now there was not that much happening to defend the country, maybe because the poor bastard got scared silly(Bush). Maybe fear in itself resulted of these attacks being continued and not responded right away. Maybe thats why everything is hidden. (could be convicted as a criminal)

In all the confusion of the moment is it possible that the BBC and other news agencies were entirely swamped with information and disinformation. And that maybe lead to mistakes being made?

I just can’t see how this conspiracy regarding 9/11 couldn’t also be negligence, is all I am saying. Your thoughts?

Originally posted by KpxMarMoTT

I just can’t see how this conspiracy regarding 9/11 couldn’t also be negligence, is all I am saying. Your thoughts?

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! *Finally* a voice of reason in the wilderness of abject paranoia and conspiracy mongering for conspiracy mongering's sake.

All one needs to do is look at the Bush administration to see the pattern of behavior. We don't see these evil plots, schemes and backstabbings all over the place like the conspiracy people describe it. We see horrid levels of incompetence, from the handling of the Katrina disaster to frittering away all the good will we got in the world after the attack. Now that the Soviet Union fell we should have been life long friends with them, but Bush set up that ring of missiles in Europe so of course they're going to be put off. You don't need to invent excuses to see how things were going on, like the conspiracy theorists do to keep their conspiracy stories alive.

The reason for all the secrecy and coverups is glaringly obvious- someone dropped the ball and noone wants to be the one who admits they dropped the ball. Seriously, if some government drone had a warning of an imminent attack lying forgotten underneath a pizza box in the corner of his office, who here believes he'd ever come forward and say, "sorry, my bad"? It's the whole reason we know it WASN'T a conspiracy; the Bush administration would only foul that up too if they tried.

Problem is, we'll never know who dropped the ball, becuase these conspiracy people are listenign to these damned fool con artists and conspriacy web sites, and they're turning the whole debate into a three ring circus with these controlled demolitions, faked crash sites, lasers from outer space, or whatever.

I appreciate your bringing up a subject constantly being lost here, and I give you a star for your efforts.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Thanks goodOlDave, I apreciate the comments.

I see that you still have this same view on the subject as always, and I of course would not dare contradict you since it has served no purpose in the past. I am not sure you remember our previous conversations, but I guess I'm not suprised you anwsered first.

Please tell me sir, if you do not believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, why are you hanging around this forum? I guess this could anwser it right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by KpxMarMoTT
Thanks goodOlDave, I apreciate the comments.

I see that you still have this same view on the subject as always, and I of course would not dare contradict you since it has served no purpose in the past. I am not sure you remember our previous conversations, but I guess I'm not suprised you anwsered first.

Please tell me sir, if you do not believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, why are you hanging around this forum? I guess this could anwser it right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't remember you, no, but I have always made my position known- if you do not agree with the 9/11 commission report, it becomes your responsibility to provide us with an alternative scenario which better fits the facts...but so far, all the alternative scenarios are goofball claims that could only work in a Hollywood movie- secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, armies of sinister gov't agents planted everywhere, the list goes on and on. Worse, they're backed up by lies being quoted off those paranoid conspiracy web sites that a 30 second Google search would expose- no interceptors were scrambled, all the bomb dogs were withdrawn, no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon, the hijackers all being illiterate cavemen, the list goes on and on. It's as if the conspiracy people WANT these secret gov't plots to be true. You are the first person other than me who suggested an actual legitimate alternative explanation: "incompetency".

I'm not here to insult anyone or make anyone feel bad, I'm here to expose these conspiracy websites as being the bunch of con artists they are, so I invite you as well as anyone else to "try to contradict me" but know that I've been chatting with the conspiracy people for a long, long time, so if you don't believe anything else I post here, believe me when I say I know all your conspiracy claims better than you do.

Well given the government's reputation for being incompetant, of course it makes sense. I mean, take a look at the war on drugs for instance. Waste of money, waste of police, waste of prison space, and not to mention it managed to create even more crime. Given that, and the fact that this was probably the first time terrorists ever used planes as missles to attack skyscrapers, it's understandable that maybe this event caught them off-guard.

What exactly brought down building 7 then?

I just can't find anything that explains how building 7 was standing and then went into a free fall because of a fire. It really truly looks like a controlled fall. So do the other towers for that matter but building 7 is a mystery as far as I'm concerned and I just don't see how it could fall the way it did without someone wanting it to.


I am not saying I really think one way or the other, both sides are conceivable. All I am saying is that just because some aspects of the truther movement seem far fetched and wrong doesn't mean they are completely wrong. If the official story is not true than anything could have happened and I'm sure that no single truther story has all the pieces in place.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by NWtoHide]

Originally posted by NWtoHide
What exactly brought down building 7 then?

I just can't find anything that explains how building 7 was standing and then went into a free fall because of a fire. It really truly looks like a controlled fall. So do the other towers for that matter but building 7 is a mystery as far as I'm concerned and I just don't see how it could fall the way it did without someone wanting it to.

Well, you have two options available to you...

a) hordes of secret agents planted in the NYPA were able to sneak into WTC 7 and installed tons of invisible controlled demolitions, and hordes of secret agents planted in the ground workers whisked all the steel destroyed by controlled demolitions so that noone would notice, and hordes of secret agents planted in FEMA, NIST, and the NYFD actively conspired in a disinformation campaign to cover it up.

OR

b) Someone tried to be too imaginative in the design of the building and only wound up fouling it up, and the whole thing would've come crashing down simply by giving a specific critical component a good swift kick, regardless of from fire or explosives.

Originally posted by KpxMarMoTT
I just can’t see how this conspiracy regarding 9/11 couldn’t also be negligence, is all I am saying. Your thoughts?

The full series of circumstances that run through every aspect of 9/11 cannot be explained in this way.

Even focusing on prevention of 9/11, would such an astounding degree of negligence be probable?

To give but one brief example of the type of scenario we are dealing with: -

At least two of the hijackers who were known Al Qaeda affiliates were being tracked by the CIA and were allowed to enter the United States. Once these hijackers arrived in the United States they then had numerous contacts with an active FBI informant. Some other of the hijackers lived right outside the gates of the NSA. The hijackers were funded by intelligence services and other intelligence agents were arrested on the scene in New York on 9/11. Not only did a vast quantity of intelligence warnings go unheeded but investigations within the United States were deliberately blocked despite agents being aware of the danger, a situation which had become worse with the coming of the Bush Administration.

So we see that negligence cannot explain even these circumstances which are but a speck in the mountain of 9/11 evidence. The intelligence services and agencies were all over the hijackers with the above facts indicating a level of collusion.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Why would it take a hoard of people to pull this off? A few people given access to certain points of the building (the load bearing columns) could plant explosives, even if it took a few weeks.

I don't think very many people would know therefore it wouldn't take much to cover it up. We all know the government is VERY compartmentalized, why would this be any different. The biggest false flag in history would be known about by a VERY select few.

Once again, I do not know and neither do any of you out there. It just seems that people leave out parts when trying to debunk these theories just as they do when they try to debunk the official story. I just don't think many people would have known about the events of that day therefore the cover-up may not be as difficult as thought. Since when do hundreds of people know about top secret government activities?

Close, but 9/11 was actually a response.

BushCo planned on invading Iraq ..before Bush was ever *ahem* "elected" in 2000.

As soon as Bush tookoffice, and the Iraq plants were given the green light, 9/11 happened.

The purpose of 9/11 was to wreck the US economy (by grounding the entire US air fleet), and sverely postpone, if not entirely stop the Iraq occupation.

So, anyway....the typical terrorist M.O. is to use secondary devices to create a multiplier effect by attacking first responders.

This is exactly what happened in the WTC.

Meaning terrorists themselves planted exotic fusion bombs....basically 1993 but refined and expanded.

This opens up a whole can of worms...meaning fission-less fusion bombs are probably already planted all over...with the cooperation of other world powers that are fighting with us over the last reminaing table scraps of peak oil.

No?

reply to post by __rich__


No.

I do not believe it was a case of simple incompetence. It would be incompetence on a scale never before seen. From airline pilots, to airport security, to NORAD, to The White House response or lack of a response.

People always say that if there was a conspiracy, too many people would have to be involved, which I do not subscribe to. I say if it was incompetence, there would have to be too many people who woke up stuck on stupid that morning.

As some say, follow the money. So ask yourself, how much money is spent on NORAD and defense each year. Now ask yourself with the budget of NORAD how is it possible to have such a security failure, on such a massive scale, and yet no one was held responsible, fired, suspended, or reprimanded in any way. Fact is, those who would be responsible for the failure in security on that day, actually received promotions and more funds. They were REWARDED for their failure.

Just incompetency? The actions after the event suggest that is not the case.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by __rich__

 

No.

Yes. It all fits together nicely.

The father of the neutron bomb Samuel Cohen admits pure fusion weapons exist.

Greg Palast has exposed the whole Iraq/Peak Oil connection.

Exotic Fusion wepaons are the only explanation that explain the various explosive anomalies.

Other no-so-friendly world powers not wanting BuchCo to invade and occupy Iraq makes sense.

reply to post by __rich__


Sorry, I was just being flippant.

But I'm a bit lost on how attacking the twin towers stopped Bush invading Iraq.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by __rich__

 

Sorry, I was just being flippant.

But I'm a bit lost on how attacking the twin towers stopped Bush invading Iraq.

It failed, I guess.

I think the intent of 9/11 as a whole was to bring the US to our knees. Hit our financial heart (WTC) Government (Fl. 93), and Military (Pentagon).

Grounding the entire US air fleet for a long period of time. Along with cyber attacks on infrastructure and other secondary economic hubs. (This continues to this day).

Some say 9/11 was a "false flag" to give us a reason to invade Iraq. I say, why wasn't it a preemptive attack to stop or at least throw the proverbial monkey-wrench in the plans?



[edit on 13-7-2010 by __rich__]

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


One only has to look at the Cluster F&*( that the BP oil cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico has become

All the Gubmint agency persuing their own agendas without regards to the
primary mission which is cleanup the water

Thus have Coast Guard stop boats because dont have enough life jackets or fire extinguishers

Osha forcing everyone to stop every hour to take breaks

EPA refusing to allow a massive skimmer ship because the water it discharges after removing the oil is NOT CLEAN ENOUGH!


Go back to 2001

After Moussaoui is arrested lawyers refuse to get search warrants because afraid judge might get angry if request too many warrants.

FBI agent in Phoenix write memo warn of radical Muslims taking flight training which gets stopped up in FBI bureaucracy

FBI and CIA not share information because of some vague concern that
civil rights might be harmed - so 2 hijackers that CIA had identified and tracked to US in 2000 are "lost" .

Can go on

Read James Bam ford's SHADOW FACTORY

Gives good account of failure of US intelligence to track the hijackers despite living here for 2 years, being stopped for traffic offenses

Originally posted by NWtoHide
Why would it take a hoard of people to pull this off? A few people given access to certain points of the building (the load bearing columns) could plant explosives, even if it took a few weeks.

Becuase there are more than "just a few" who maintain the building. If there are ten people who have access to sensitive areas and only one of them was a secret agent planting explosives, the other nine would say, "what the heck are you doing"? If an electrician working in the building for ten years suddenly saw a mysterious transformer appear overnight in a spot where there shouldn't be a transformer, he's sure as shootin' goign to want to know where it came from. The argument that all the bystanders in the building were as stupid as a bag of hammers is unconvincing.

I don't think very many people would know therefore it wouldn't take much to cover it up. We all know the government is VERY compartmentalized, why would this be any different. The biggest false flag in history would be known about by a VERY select few.

Anyone with the intelligence higher than moss can still figure out on their own that their being ordered to sneak into an occupied building undetected and rig explosives where noone can find them is going to get a hell of a lot of people killed, regardless of how you compartmentalize them from all the other details.

Once again, I do not know and neither do any of you out there.

This is true of course....but it's likewise true that we can figure out things that WEREN'T there. Some things are easy to discount, like heat rays from Martian war machines, while others can be figured out by using logic, like steel destroyed by controlled demolitions is going to lie around in a pile waiting for someone to find it and see it was destroyed by controlled demolitions. The argument that all the ground crews would be walking around oblivious to all this blatant evidence around them is likewise unconvincing.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by GoodOlDave]

I would like to say that there are those in here that I simply do not trust, who no matter what is being said will never keep an open mind.

Example: I firmly believe 9/11 was an inside job, yet my OP mentions the possibility of it being something else. If you have enough vision and enough brain matter, you are not closed to any possibility.

Dave dude, you seem to me like a total shill. Never even once changed your point of view, and seem to be the first one to respond at anything. You don't look like you fit with the rest of the decor. Your opinion is too negative to be non directed and without specific outside intent.

Furthermore I believe this will be my last post here on my own thread, since this is going nowhere. See you all laterz

[edit on 16-7-2010 by KpxMarMoTT]

Originally posted by KpxMarMoTT
Dave dude, you seem to me like a total shill. Never even once changed your point of view, and seem to be the first one to respond at anything. You don't look like you fit with the rest of the decor. Your opinion is too negative to be non directed and without specific outside intent.

Come now, don't be silly. The conspiracy people keep insisting on the same exhaustively debunked stories of controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, hordes of secret agents plnted everywhere, and so on, so of COURSE I'm not going to change my view. If you keep asking me over and over what two plus two equals I'm going to continuously tell you that it's four. Give me an original statement to ponder and I'll give you an original answer.

At first I thought you DID post an original statement with the "couldn't it really have been incompetence" and I gave you a new answer that I agreed wholeheartedly...but then you pull the same "you're a secret gov't disinformation agent" BS that every other conspiracy theorist always needs to rely on to keep these conspiracy stories alive. The only one here with an opinion "too negative to be non directed and without specific outside intent" is you.

Furthermore I believe this will be my last post here on my own thread, since this is going nowhere. See you all laterz

So whose fault is that? Mine, for answering your question honestly, or yours, for posting a statement that you're only pretending to believe?