9/11 conspiracy theorists are, unfortunately, a rather common breed, especially considering they come from all political ideologies. Websites like Prison Planet don’t help, especially when they bill themselves as reporting the truth. I’m rather fond of saying that truth requires proof. Half-assed theories aren’t proof. Of course, linking to things like this on the main page of the site doesn’t help when it comes to credibility.
Anyways, who exactly is Alex Jones? He’s best known as a conspiracy theorist who runs a radio show and the aforementioned Prison Planet (I’m not giving that site the pleasure of a link). In fact, I’d say he’s one of the most vocal opponents of the official version of the events of 9/11. As for his political ideology, he’s a paleoconservative. Think Rush Limbaugh but worse. He’s so extreme it scares me to think people actually believe what he says. Now, I don’t mind conservatives, but when anyone, regardless of their political beliefs, willingly believes that the government of the United States launched missiles at its own buildings (including a government one, containing key members of the Defense Department), killed 2000 of its own civilians (2000 less people paying taxes), and yet was unable to whack the most vocal conspiracy theorists (such as the maker of Loose Change), I tend to think they’re a little crazy.
What really got me this time was a Jones-led attack on a Wikipedia editor, Morton Devonshire, who allegedly deleted 9/11 Truth Movement related articles and basically covered up any “truth” Jones and his comrades put up on Wikipedia (the article is a couple months old, but it was brought up in a more recent Wikipedia discussion). Interestingly enough, Morton isn’t an administrator, which means he has no power to delete articles. He can propose and request deletion, but he doesn’t have the last say.
The article Jones co-wrote is filled with juvenile attacks on Morton, including accusations of trolling and claims that his existence is “stunted and worthless,” among other ad hominem attacks. What a perfect way to show people you hold the superior moral ground… They also incorrectly quote Wikipedia policies (please note Alex, articles don’t necessarily need a discussion to be deleted; if they’re pure bullshit or nonsense, no discussion is needed). But what takes the cake is Jones’ encouragement of his readers to vandalize Morton’s user page. Justification of how crazy these truthers are? I think so.
I find it interesting that anyone who disagrees with the conspiracy theorists is brainwashed, a neo-con, or too stupid/blind/Republican to accept the “facts.” Granted, most people (myself included) consider conspiracy theorists to be gullible nutcases who just want to believe that their government is actually capable of pulling off the worst terrorist attack in the United States with no one spilling the beans about it. Considering the type of “facts” these people generally come up with, it’s a wonder anyone actually believes them. For every bit of proof they come up with, a simpler and more reasonable explanation can be given. Remember Occam’s Razor, people.
Take, for instance, the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it actually collapsed. Conspiracy theorists say the BBC knew beforehand because the collapse was pre-planned. A more reasonable explanation is that the reporter got bad information. Someone thought the building collapsed and relayed the (false) information to the reporter. This happens all the time in news.
Or how about how everyone pulled out of WTC 7 before it collapsed? Conspiracy theorists would tell you, again, that the collapse was pre-planned and that explosives were used. This is based on a radio message by Larry Silverstein, owner of the property, who said “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it,” in regards to WTC 7. The conspiracy take is that Silverstein admitted to giving the go ahead to demolishing the building, since “pull” is industry jargon for demolishing a building. Why would Silverstein do this? Insurance fraud. Building goes down; he gets the money. However, a simpler explanation is that Silverstein was talking about pulling the fire department operation trying to extinguish the flames in the building. Silverstein was not a demolitions expert, so why would he use demolitions jargon? It’s reasonable to assume that he thought the building was a lost cause, so he would rather everyone get out of the building instead of them being caught inside when it eventually collapsed. A more in-depth explanation is available here.
Ah, busting myths is fun. And rather easy once you get the hang of it. The problem is getting conspiracy theorists to listen to you. I’ve tried, and let me tell you, it’s not easy. As Alex Jones showed, dealing with critics is not a strong point of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Prove them wrong (or simply disbelieve them) and they just attack you, usually with completely false accusations. I’m not a neo-con. I’m not being paid by CENTCOM. Heck, I’ve even asked questions on 9/11 Truth forums (and got blasted for not blindly believing everything Loose Change said). Believe me, I’ve examined the evidence. And I think it justifies the official account. If you think that’s wrong, prove to me that Popular Mechanics and National Geographic (among other groups) are being bribed by the government to support their version of events. Show me how the NIST’s scientific data is wrong.
Theories are easy to formulate. Proof is simple to fabricate. But solid, incontrovertible proof…now that’s harder to come by, isn’t it? I guess I just need to remember that there will always be people who simply want to believe that there is always some evil New World Order behind everything that happens.
EDIT: I find it interesting that a good deal of the comments on this appear to be from anonymous people intent on insulting me without actually trying to prove that I’m wrong. While I encourage everyone to feel free to post intelligent, informative, and useful comments, I’ll be forced to invoke Benford’s law of controversy if people continue to post rhetoric.
Sphere: Related Content
You haven’t busted any myths my friend. If you watch the video of Silverstein saying he decided to “pull it” it is very clear that “it” was the building, not the fire department officials. Is English your first language? How can you not see that “it” meant the building??
I have watched the video. The thing is, I’m watching it without the preconceived notion that the government planned 9/11. And yes, my first language is English. I know the ins and outs of pronouns, which is why I took Silverstein to mean the fire mission instead of the building. He was talking about the loss of life before he said to “pull it.” This implies he was talking about the firefighters in the building, many of whom had succumbed to falling debris and fire. Better to pull them out and abandon the building than have it fall down around them.
And again, considering Silverstein was no demolitions expert (and neither was the fire chief he was talking to), why would he refer to demolishing the building as “pulling” it? That’s demolition jargon, not often used by people who aren’t in the demolitions business.
Finally, even if Silverstein was referring to the building and he meant demolishing it, why would the fire department agree to that? The only motive for intentionally demolishing the building was insurance fraud and fire departments don’t generally agree to assist in that. So you could assume that “it” refers to the building, but it appears much simpler to say that it doesn’t. Don’t get mad at me for not being as paranoid as you are. It is certainly not “clear” to me that there’s a conspiracy.
Why do you think he’s a liberal? If you believe that the government is out of control and killing it’s own people, why would you want to further empower the government? Conspiracy theorists are generally Ultra-Conservative…maybe even so far as to say they are anarchist.
I suppose they (conspiracy theorists) kind of defy the usual descriptions. I got the impression he was liberal because of some of the other things he’s talked about, and that he bashes neo-cons every chance he gets. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe he’s just projecting.
Alex is pro-gun, a strict Chrstian, and doesn’t believe women should serve in the military. None of these fall under the liberal belief system
Traditionally, Conspiracy theorist have come from the far right, not the left.
But wouldn’t the far right be more likely to trust the government than the far left? Well, he’s still a nutcase. Any political extremist falls under that category, whether they be from the left or the right.
This is a classic case of discrediting the messenger not the message. Lokk at the pieces of this puzzle….you may not like what you find. As far as the government shooting missiles into government buildings, have you ever heard of the Northwoods Document? Do you homework before you open your uninformed mouth!
Joe, try not to act like an asshole. You’re intruding on my job. I’m discrediting the messenger here because that was the intent of this post. If you’re looking for where I discredit the message, I may have past posts dealing with that. This was never meant to be a post ripping apart 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you want that, I can certainly do that. Why? Because, contrary to your false assumption, I have done my homework. As a result, I find the conspiracy theories to be complete rubbish. Think before you decide to insult the owner of a moderated blog. You may not like what your comments might eventually say.
Cody- right on- I could not agree with you more about alex Jones and all of those affiliated with him. Nut jobs! Trying to scare poeple with their made up stories. My son in a United States Marine and Alex Jones is An Anti American!
Better a nutcase than no nuts at all.
If you are a follower of the official story about 9/11, you simply accept things that do not add up.
It was the government that made claims about what happened that day, not your nutcases - They asked questions and came up with alternative views that would fit reality.
In other words, your nutcases do not need to prove claims, because common sense and specific knowledge easily refute the (absence of) statements of the ‘9/11 omission report’.
The only proof they need is the proof that their knowledge (about e.g. physics) is sound. And that I think you can expect that from professors, pilots, or architects.
-
But it is not about that, as Sue told herself: it’s about fear.
Nobody tries to scare people.
The thing you are made scared of is the thing you are told about by authorities.
And these authorities provided you with security in the past, so why wouldn’t they provide it to you today.
After all, these authorities have always been the best Americans.
You feel that America did not get what it deserved, because authorities told you so.
You have always been a follower of authority, because that has always been the way to get rewards.
Now you are told that someone else did it, and you forget to take the one who points the finger into account , because the ‘one’ is the one who provided you with rewards.
So you are standing behind the ‘one’, while clinging to the rock that has broken and will fall on your head in the future.
Nobody wants that to happen, but it is your rock. Good luck!
My, this is a popular post.
“If you are a follower of the official story about 9/11, you simply accept things that do not add up.”
No, if I believe the official story, it’s because the conspiracy theories are even more flawed than the official story. We don’t know exactly what happened, so we have to guess. I just find the official guess more believable than “the government did it.” Why? What possible motive could there be for the United States government to attack one of it’s own government buildings containing the Defense Department, which is, quite possibly, the department most dear to the current administration. Doesn’t make sense.
“In other words, your nutcases do not need to prove claims, because common sense and specific knowledge easily refute the (absence of) statements of the ‘9/11 omission report’.”
Everyone needs to prove claims, especially if they’re as outlandish as those the truthers propose. You say common sense refutes the official version, but I fail to see how it’s common sense to confuse airplane wreckage with a missile. Unless the government put airplane seats on the missile. Because that’s a reasonable thing to do…
“The only proof they need is the proof that their knowledge (about e.g. physics) is sound. And that I think you can expect that from professors, pilots, or architects.”
Please to note that professors, pilots, and architects have given proof and made statements against the conspiracy theories. In other words, it is indeed physically possible for a skyscraper to collapse in on itself when its support beams are subjected to the heat of jet fuel after being impacted by a fast-moving airplane (meaning they were already weakened by the time the fire got hot enough to reduce their structural integrity to the breaking or bending point).
As for the second part of your comment…I’m not quite sure what to make of that. Seems a tad bit on the disjointed side. And completely inaccurate.
It may help to know that I don’t automatically trust the government. All authority must prove its trustworthiness before I accept it, and the current administration…well, let’s say I’m anxiously awaiting November 2008. Don’t assume that I agree with the government’s story because it’s the government. I agree with the government’s story because I came to that conclusion independently. I know that may be hard to believe, but I did indeed examine the evidence available and found the official story more reasonable, more accurate, and simply more believable than the conspiracy theories, especially considering the truthers didn’t see fit to provide me with any more evidence than “common sense.” Tough to sway people to your cause when you rely solely on rhetoric.
To say that Alex Jones is a liberal is rather strange, he was a big oponent of Clinton and has stood as a Republican candidate for state representative in Texas House District 48 in 2000,
futhermore Jones had previously been heavily involved with the rebulding of the davidian cult church of David Coresh of Waco fame.
These facts alone place him squarely into a camp on the nutty christian right.
If anything Jones’ agenda is as a spoiler of more reasonable investigation of what was at the very least mind boggling ineptitude by the bush administration, at most a ‘pearl harbour like event’ conspiracy.
Those infected by Jones’ ideas are left unable to make good contribution on anything with any degree of seriousness as they are seen as the same kind of nut as him.
some things to consider.
1 Explosive demolition of a building is always done from the bottom up, although explosives may be placed futher up to weaken a building just prior to collapse.
2 the term ‘pulling a building’ is used in demolition circles to describe a structures being physically pulled by heavy vehicles into collapse.. it is not used to refer to a building being demolished by means of explosives.
3 if explosives were used, then how did they withstand the 1000 degree temperatures in the fire?
4 a typical building is comprised of about 70% air, 30% structure and furniture, a collapsing building would compress air below and force walls outwards, windows below would be seen to explode as a result of such compressed air in rooms. this is seen in WTC and should not be used to suggest explosive demolition. indeed, if explosives were used then why were windows exploding? explosives would have been placed on steel girders deep inside the structure.
5 explosives would have to be ‘pre burned’ into the steel, this means removing all insulating materials, walls, and some degree of pre cutting on many many floors..
6 demolition experts present at the scene and charged with removal of debris saw no evidence of explosive demolition in the 8 months of removal of the remains of the building.
7 futher examination of girders on various stacks around the site where girders were placed showed no evidence whatsoever of explosived being present, explosives leave very distinct ‘cutting’ marks. it is unlikely in the least that the army of expert demolition experts who were employed to remove the debris spotted no explosive traces if such were used.
8 sizemographic equipment used to monitor buildings in manhatan for insurance purposes see no spikes in their traces which would be present if explosives were used.
Jones is a nutter who obscures what might be a far nastier conspiracy by the witehouse to take america to war, where many more have lost their lives than on 9/11. However reading Alex Jones work provides the reader with less than a credible position and means that they end up being thought of as idiots.
Coupled with Jones’ political views, it is more reasonable to suggest that Jones himself is part of a conspiracy to obscure very pertinent questions about the role of the whitehouse in taking the USA to Iraq.
Marz: Nice to see someone who agrees with me about Jones and his crazy ideas. Anyways, yes, I realize now he’s not a liberal. He’s in fact a paleoconservative. I was confused by his bashing of neoconservatives and his adherence to 9/11 conspiracy theories (often the realm of the kind of people conservative bloggers call “moonbats”), so I incorrectly put him on the far left rather than the far right.
Interesting that you suggest he’s running interference for the Bush administration. I can understand that point of view, though I don’t completely agree. By viciously attacking Bush, he could really be creating support for them, much as some conservatives have said that the Westboro Baptist Church is really pro-homosexual in that they create support for gays by attacking them. Either way, he’s still a nut, and it worries me that people actually pay attention to what he says.
Please don’t underestimate the intelligence services when it comes to their efforts to control hegemony (ruling ideas), Hamas for instance was originally set up by the Israeli intelligence community as a way of distracting support from the PLO, although it is debatable how much influence they have now as Iran appears to be at the reigns these days.
The nation of Islam had as it’s leadership many CIA agents, the IRA was heavily infiltrated by MI5, which was able to stimulate a war between factions leading to a split. Indeed, the mujahadeem, a faction of which later became known by the name of a CIA base they had trained in, became Al qaida.
In all cases the tactic to get to positions of leadership is the same, Agents become the most rabbid oponents of the authorities, they urge the organization to go father than it otherwise might, Basically the idea is to take an organization so far ahead of the masses that nobody follows, the organization becomes a nutty viscious entity which leaves the voice of reason (and support) far behind.
On the website of the project for the new american century (PNAC), a document called “rebuilding America’s defences” which later became the basis for the national security document, states quite clearly that the whitehouse should dominate the media and hide the plan to go to war as the american people were not willing to do so at this time. The document in question was written before 9/11 and goes on to say that all that was missing was a ‘pearl harbour like event’. It also required a limited war in which American troops could become a fighting force again, It clearly calls for an invasion of Iraq and ‘full spectrum domination’ of the middle east and indeed the world.
Bush made no secret of the fact that he hated the WTC before 9/11, he saw it as an obsticle to US dominaton. Likewise both bush and Jones saw the UN and WTC as a ‘new world order’ which must be disbanded or used to perform menial tasks. Both Bush and Jones had the same opinion of WTC and UN.
I do not want to say that there was a conspiracy to demolish the WTC, there is no evidence for this. There was however a conspiracy to take the USA to Iraq, this is spelled out by the signatories of the PNAC, many of whom went on to form the Bush whitehouse administration.
It may be the case that 9/11 was an opportunity which was siezed upon in a way which would make many shudder, There is no doubt that Rumsfled, Cheney disgusted many senior staff in Washington who then went on to resign and spill the beans!!!
This is important, bean spilling is something one would expect to see if something dodgy was going on, We got bean spilling in copious quantities. All this at a time when it was very difficult to raise a voice above the screams of the Pro war media.
A conspiracy to go to war existed and was kept secret until the less than satisfactory explainations of the whitehouse came under question. Those of us who have followed the careers of such people as Rumsfeld from the time he was telling us that Glasnost was a plan by the Russians to invade the USA know only too well what his true colours are.
As for Jones.. I think he is a nut who hs proved to be very useful, siding with what has almost become known as his side in this debate means that we have been pulled into the nutty extremes. I have to ask myself whether this was a constructed stuation or whether it was promoted oportunistically. In either case, he is someone whom i would much rahter was removed from the scene and ridiculed for being the spoiler which he is.
Many years ago nobody read Nigerian trade union documents, no one would have considered studying the effects of polution on some obscure mexican peninsula, I was one of the few on the left loonies who was trying to investigate how the world worked then, These days all has changed, since 9/11 it is as though people have opened their eyes to the world around them, this makes me very happy :) Jones threatens this, he threatens to close our eyes again by shwing us nothing but BS as the reward for our efforts to see more deeply.
I completely agree that there was a conspiracy to go to war. I’ve actually been called a truther because I theorized that Bush et al used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, which some in the administration had been wanting to invade since the Gulf War (when Saddam was left in power). They didn’t need to cause 9/11 to take advantage of it. It’s just as disturbing, but it’s definitely good that the end result is that people are more skeptical of the government and more willing to investigate things for themselves.
The idea that a govt would not kill a few people for the greater good is insane.
Why ?
Because they have done it before over and over again . . .
From the USS Liberty incident to The Bologna Railway Station Bombing, and that is just the operations of the us military. Before you flame me, think of how many people we sacrificed during world war 2 just to keep the enigma code cracking at Bletchley Park secret.
Where do you people keep coming from? Seriously. Anyways, I don’t intend to flame, so don’t take it that way. I’m a skeptic, so I’m bound to be a little short when it comes to circumstantial evidence and assumptions.
You cannot prove a conspiracy theory by using other conspiracy theories. You need solid proof. Unfortunately (for you, that is), there is no non-circumstantial evidence that the USS Liberty incident or the Bologna station bombing, among other terrorist attacks, were caused by the respective governments. Even if you conclude that the Liberty was deliberately attacked by Israeli forces and not in error, then the blame falls squarely on Israel, not the United States. And in any case, it was certainly not for the greater good. If Israel did attack the Liberty, the main theory says it was to cover up a massacre of unarmed Egyptian soldiers. That’s hardly in the same category as 9/11, since the theory is that 9/11 was engineered to give the United States a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, home to known terrorists and enemies of the country. Of course, that all assumes there’s proof the attack wasn’t accidental. There’s as much evidence pointing to a deliberate attack on the Liberty as there is pointing to the United States government flying missiles into the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers. That is to say, nothing concrete or indisputable.
I’m not quite sure what you’re insinuating with the Enigma comment, but I don’t think it makes sense in context. The impact the ULTRA intelligence (resulting from the cracking of the Enigma code) had on the war is still under debate. It could be that the war was significantly shortened (meaning it could have gone past 1945 had the code not been broken). At any rate, you would still need to prove that soldiers were sacrificed simply to keep the ULTRA intel secret.
Heh Cody, thanks for the support. You’ll never win in arguing with these nutcases. Jones in particular has no incentive to be honest about what happened on 9/11, as he makes his living peddling these notions. Jones is a shyster, and the people who believe his propaganda are idiots — how can you argue with idiots?
Alex Jones is the most amazing guy on planet earth…all he does is tell the truth about the governmetn and what they are trying to do to us…in the end you will all find out…The Lord our God is going to come to rule over the earth….and those that dont believe will burn for the rest of their lifes in hell…yah i know you secret workers are watching what i type right now….but i am letting you know…we are not your slaves. we will win in the end…leave us alone. what did we do to you? In the end you will all be judged and get thrown in the lake of fire! And I will be up in Heaven watching you, and telling you..”i tried to tell you” Too bad for you…sorry. It makes me wanna cry just thinking of all the people that are going to hell..well Good Luck trying to take over the world Bush…lol Good Bye
Morton: I learned that the hard way. I guess I still hold out hope that someone will realize they’re an idiot… I’m such an optimist.
Sarah: I’m a bit confused at how you go from Jones to God to hell all in one paragraph. Are you saying that if I don’t believe Jones’ claims, I must be an atheist? Maybe I’ll take Morton’s advice and leave you well enough alone.
Cody, you asked where all of us were coming from, well, i can’t speak for others but i personally am from my mom.. in the UK. (I suspect that some here may be lizards in human form, from another planet who secretly rule the world(joke))
Basically I went looking to research Jones on Google, I smelled a rat and wondered why it should be that Alex Jones should have such a large influence at such a poigniant time. The more i found out the more it began to dawn on me that Jones was not only a fake, but perhaps something worse than that. This has made me concerned enough to post to forums like your own in the hope of getting some feedback, which brings more light onto the subject.
Fact is Cody that this article appears to have improved your google ranking :)
for those who still think that Alex Jones is the greatest man on earth and have no doubts thi after reading the above, may i suggest a site where you will find some very helpful information.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
Great little article man, those Conspiracy Theorists are nuts, that’s all there is to it man. I go through this same stuff day in and day out on my Youtube channel (I do videos mostly debunking or just plain discussing Conspiracy Theories). You learn to get used to it, and I do try my best to reply to these people and explain that they are wrong and blindly following their leaders. Which is ironic, because that’s exactly what they say of us lol.
Have a great day!
-CJ
Hi, I just spent my morning listening to Alex Jones on Coast To Coast with George Noory. I seriously don’t think I’ve laughed that hard in a long time, the guy cracks me up. And I thank you Cody for providing a web site where those of us who do think Alex is nutters can visit.
Most points of your arguments fail.
Although Jones just does what he does because he’s a Christian fanatic. I belive some things he says and yes i do belive 911 was an inside job. I don’t like why jones does it because he completly contradicts himself.
Telling people to not conform with global capitalists is ok, but if you confrom yourself to the biggest scam in the history of human kind (Religion) then you realise that he fails horribally..
Mike, why do my arguments fail? You say that outright, but you don’t bother to refute my claims at all.
I would be very interested in you emailing me something that rips apart Alex Jone’s message. Now, I’ve seen a lot of the conspiracy videos, and I’ve done A LOT of research myself… A LOT I tell you, about a lot of things. I’m very skeptical when it comes to something like this, but I must say that the evidence that I myself have gathered does point towards what Alex Jones says. Like I said, I’m still skeptical, I’m skeptical of all sides of this story, so I would be very glad if you could email me something that can disprove this. I don’t want to believe it, but it seems to be true. Anyway, in regards to you asking why the government would do something like this, it all leads up to the New World Order which I’m sure you’ve heard of. (Still skeptical of course) The government does something like this so they can have an excuse to have a standing army, which is prohibited in times of peace. They also would do it to have an excuse to spy on everyone with cameras and such, and pass new anti-terrorism laws which will just take away our rights, such as the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, the right to free speech, and so on… Anyways, PLEASE email me back your research you have done, because I want to get the full story, not just one side of it. Thank you.
Well, Chris, I don’t have much available, but I do frequently refer to a couple of websites that I think provide rather unbiased material. They don’t claim to prove or disprove anything, though the evidence they have makes it seem to me that the claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren’t foolproof.
Debunking 911 (Okay, this one does have a bit of bias, but I still think the evidence speaks for itself.)
911Myths (I think this is the best one to take a look at, but it’s always good to double-check with other sites.)
I just want to make a few points…
#1 The whole Larry Silverstein thing is bunk. I’ve seen the video of the entire conversation, not just the short clip where he says, “pull it”. If you listen to the whole clip, you’ll realize that the “pull it” quote is taken way out of context. He is actually talking to the fire chief about pulling the firefighters out of the building. I can’t remember where the clip was, I wish I could. This quote is used over and over by the conspiracy theorists, and it is entirely taken out of context. It’s a shame they keep using things like this to prove their theories. When you find out the truth on one point, that turns out to be false, it makes you not want to believe the rest of their points.
#2 There are a lot of things in Loose Change and other 911 Truther sites that are bunk. They are easily disproven, or they are taken out of context. Again, it’s hard to believe anything they say when they continue to push concepts that are blatantly false, after some investigation.
Here are the questions I have. These are legitimate concerns/conincidences that lead one to think that maybe somebody knew what was going to happen… before it happened….
#1 Bin Laden used to be a CIA operative.
#2 Bush’s cousin was director of security for the WTC.
#3 United and American airlines had a EXTRORDINARY amount of put options compared with call options the week leading up to the attack, almost as if someone knew what was coming and wanted to profit from it.
#4 The government knew middle eastern men were learning to fly planes here in the U.S. without concern for learning how to land them, and they did nothing about it.
#5 The FBI tried repeatedly to get names of suspected terrorists so they could hunt for them, but they were denied the information.
#6 The Pentagon has more cameras than a camera store, but we’ve never seen a picture of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Just 5 frames of nothing but an explosion. All the other tapes have been confiscated. Why? It just doesn’t look like a plane with a 120 foot wingspan hit that building to me. Where did the wings go? Were they retracted just prior to hitting the building? Where is the tail? The damage to the Pentagon just isnt’ wide enough for a large airliner to have hit it.
#7 Where is United 93? I didn’t see any significant wreckage at the site in PA where it supposedly hit. Just a hole. Not even a particularly large hole. Where are all the plane parts? I’ve looked all over and I can’t find any pics of any significant wreckage at this site.
#8 The incident that put us into war with Vietnam, the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident, turned out to be a lie, but no one found out the government lied to us until 20 years after the fact.
I’m not saying that the government blew up the buildings themselves… I’m just saying we don’t know the whole truth.
Thanks for the comment Bill. I think a lot of those last few concerns are evidence of government incompetence more than anything else. I’ve heard before that the CIA and FBI weren’t in the business of sharing their information prior to 9/11, so it’d make sense that each would have information they thought the other group didn’t need to see. The others are probably big coincidences.
For instance, Bin Laden was indeed a CIA operative, but that was during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Any enemy of communism was our friend at that point. After the Soviets were repelled, we left Bin Laden and his mujahadeen to their own devices and later went on to post troops in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden’s home country and a holy land in Islam. Bin Laden holds and especially fundamentalist view of Islam, so it stands to reason that seeing infidels in the holy land annoyed him greatly and fueled his desire to use the training the CIA gave him to get back at us. I’d say this one is just a coincidence.
I won’t go over all of the concerns because I don’t know enough about some of them (especially United 93, but if it didn’t crash, how would one explain the cell phone calls coming from it right up until the alleged impact?). I do agree, however, that we don’t have the full truth. That’s to be expected because every government has its secrets. There’s probably a lot that the government doesn’t want us to know. My guess is that they don’t want to air the mistakes they made in handling the information they had regarding 9/11. No one wants to look stupid.
Yeah… I think incompetence has something to do with it. It is our federal government we’re talking about after all.
The only thing is the put options seem to suggest prior knowledge of something about to happen.
And as far as the crash site(s) go, I just don’t see how an airliner made those holes in the Pentagon… or at Shanksville. It just doesn’t look like an airliner crash, and I’ve looked everywhere for pics, and I can’t find enough wreckage to justify it. And if there are questions in people’s minds, why can’t the Pentagon release the video or pics that show the actual plane? Where are the holes for the engines? The wings? Just one big hole, supposedly only 16′ in diameter.
The coroner was on the news the day of the accident in Shanksville, and he said on the news that he didn’t even find one body part, he assumed because of the speed of the airliner when it crashed. But now… they have supposedly identified all the bodies. It’s just weird, that’s all.
Not saying “they” did it… just that something is not right in Denmark… or Shanksville.
Cody,
It’s okay to be disagree with Alex but I’d challenge you to actually research some of the topics he talks about. Many odd years ago I was just as skeptical, as you obviously are, to many of the related topics Jones discusses on his radio program. Being the consummate researcher type, I’ve done the job of looking into some of his statements and claims. Jones tends to be a little dramatic on his show but his facts normally check out.
If you want to do some REAL research into 9/11 do yourself a favor and read David Ray Griffin’s book, “A New Pearl Harbor”. It’s intelligently laid out and seems to be the most unbiased work to date.
Hey Cody…
you know that liquid that is falling on your head and getting you wet?
I dont think its rain, look up cause you smell of urine.
Seriously though I cant find anyone that I completely agree with on radio or TV however I know my country is at the moment FUCKED!!!!!!
How many innocent have been killed by our troops, policies and lies.
Wake up and smell the fascism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Way to make your point Harry!! Oh, exactly what was your point?? It kind of got lost in the urine and f-word.
Cody, don’t give up hope. There are still millions in the silent majority that aren’t totally nuts.
Are you related to Perry Logan? I laugh when I see him around the internet, he’s everywhere, sounding just as crazy as Jones most of the time.
Also, I just wanted to say, that while Alex Jones did use Ad Hominem useless attacks, Morton acted no better in this regard. For just one example of Morton also using pointless attacks, see the talk page on Wikipedia for Alex Jones, where Morton says;
“A better term would be ‘Nutburger’ — how ’bout we use that? MortonDevonshire”
Last I checked, Nutburger is not a particularly useful phrase when making an argument.
I love to watch this whole drama across the web, it amuses me greatly that most of Jones distractors are just as ridiculous as Jones himself.
@Jim: I’m not related to Perry, thankfully. Also, I agree that Morton wasn’t exactly a saint. I didn’t look into the entire drama (imagine how many talk page archives that must go back) in order to preserve my sanity, but I’m certain there was plenty of name-calling on both sides.