Ok, so I consider myself to be a relatively open-minded individual and I certainly submit to my fair share of conspiracy theories. Personally, I believe that 9/11 was not the result of any conspiracy involving the U.S. government, and that the official story is true in this case. I wouldn't be shocked if I was wrong, but that's just what my beliefs are.

So, on to my question...


...with all this talk of 9/11 conspiracies, I gotta ask, if the government simply wanted to use such an event as an excuse to enter Iraq and enstate that PATRIOT Act, wouldn't it be much easier to simply fabricate some evidence that an event such as 9/11 was being planned by terrorists. To me, it seems as though it would be much more logical and feasible to convince the American public that such an attack almost occurred, than to deal with actually perpetrating it. Honestly, to actually stage the terrorist attack would probably not be impossible, but it would be very difficult to do and insanely difficult to cover up. If all of this was a conspiracy, wouldn't the government save a lot of time and risk by creating false evidence? I dunno, it bugs me, and is one of the reasons that I find it difficult to accept the 9/11 conspiracy theories.


I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of other people. I'm open criticism, I sincerely want to know what conspiracy believers and non-believers have to say about this.

We needed to get attacked a scare would not of been enough to declare war on a another country the attacks were allowed so that we could put in place a functional government in afganistan so they could finish a oil pipeline project going through all the Stans in that region not only but create a new enemy for the industrial military complex to fight for the next 50 years .

If you want something to sink your teeth into and see what I'm talking about watch this lecture this man comes from a history of CIA family involvement going back 75 years and he knows what he is talking about in fact you can research all his findings.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=87...+lies&hl=en

The CIA has only existed for 60 years.

They are pro's at covering up. The Kennedy Assasination was the biggest cover up ever and they got away with it. They manipulate people and the evidence. How many people wound up dead after the Kennedy Assasination. People then become to afraid to speak and if they do are labelled as crazy.

My belief, is that it there was alot more going on than just portrayed by the media..

It is well known that World Trade Tower 7 held the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center - reference

When this building demolished along with it went the case files for major corporation fraud including Worldcom and Enron..

(Including the 70 billion dollar electricity swindle in California) --http://www.pww.org/article/view/523/1/53/

also... in 2001 the building was passed from Public (Port Authority) to Private Control by Larry Silverstein, Silverstein took out
extensive Insurance plans, including to make sure the buildings were insured for acts of terrorism. In the contract it gave Silverstein
the permission to rebuild the Towers if they were destroyed, after 9/11 Larry Silverstein brought his insurers to court claiming that he was
owed double his policy because both towers were destroyed, he won and was awarded 7 Billion dollars...

Always look for the rich white man behind the crime

arson!

As I recall, Worldcom and Enron were still prosecuted. So what good did getting rid of some case files do?



The towers had been hit by a terrorist act once before so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to insure it against such. Also they were insured against terrorism in 93 so why not keep them insured that way. Terrorism coverage is not abnormal anyway as it is rarely if ever specifically excluded. Most policies would cover it anyway.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

So Silverstein is rich huh? The latest from the courts with the insurance money is about a $4.6 billion amount. So he won't likely get the $7 billion. The latest estimate to rebuild is $6.3 billion. Explain to me how someone gets rich when they are $1.7 billion in the hole. He is also paying $120 million a year in rent for the complex even when the building were not there to provide any revenue. Also consider that he originally tried to buy less insurance ($1.5 billion), but his lenders objected and a $5 billion policy was discussed. Eventually the $3.5 billion amount was agreed upon. So we're supposed to believe that a guy trying to make money on the insurance intentionally bought less than he could have gotten? And had to be talked up to that amount because he wanted even less than that?
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

There was no conspiracy. 9/11 happened the way you saw it happen repeatedly on CNN and any other news channel.

**EDIT** the 93 wtc bombing has conspiracy all over it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

You forgot to include effective reinforcements for your propaganda ....




"There was no conspiracy. 9/11 happened the way you saw it happen repeatedly on CNN and any other news channel."
"There was no conspiracy. 9/11 happened the way you saw it happen repeatedly on CNN and any other news channel."
"There was no conspiracy. 9/11 happened the way you saw it happen repeatedly on CNN and any other news channel."

Wow that must be it. I guess the math, science, and audio must be wrong. You guys have (semi) snappy comebacks!

Umm no. '93 still looks like radical "Islam".

Yeah and the fbi's number 1 informant was planted in the cell yet they couldn't stop it wake up to the truth trust me when you do everything looks so much clearer and makes so much more sense.

Care to rephrase so that we may understand?

McVeigh was the fbi's number 1 informant? you have proof of this?

(Sadly W.i.a.q. I teach at FSU and FAMU so I am able to translate it.)

oklahoma was in 95 the first wtc bombing was in 93 check out the case of one of the terrorist's who was an FBI informant on the case .

**EDIT**

Anyone care to guess when this 9/11 thread gets closed?

I give it two days, tops.

McVeigh involved in the 1993 attack on the WTC? O.K., now that is out there.

BTW, I saved your avatar "ShineDown". Hope you don't mind. I really liked it.

**EDIT**
after viewing a cbs news reel of rather reporting on the foreknowledge of the fbi,as revealed by their informant who was able to get recordings of the fbi admitting to supplying the explosives and NOT intervening as originally planned,it still looks like radical "peace"???

**EDIT**

These threads are getting to the point of being embarrassing. Both sides are acting like children in a schoolyard fight, rather than intelligent debaters.

Namecalling? For heaven's sake people, GROW UP! How do you not get tired of the same thing happening over and over again?



This was the original question. If this topic cannot be argued in a civil manner, it will be closed by tonight. I don't want to hear any more sniping, any more insults, any more comments about how people who don't believe what you do must be insane, stupid, or anything else. I don't even want to hear any other arguments about 9/11 that do not pertain directly to the question asked (and yes, that means that you have to include an explanation tying in your post to the original question).

I can understand an attack would be easier to convince the public than a scare, but why would they do such a large attack. They could have gotten just as much support and less conspiracy theorists on their butts with a much smaller coverup. Even having planes hijacked with one barely hitting the pentagon and the rest being shot down would be enough to get most of Americas support to stop the terrorists. I believe it actually was terrorists. I think they knew about it in advance yet foolishly dropped the ball on stopping it. Whats the point of such an extravagent plan when something much simpler, safer, and less expensive would have yielded the same results?