Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
The most you can claim about 9/11 conspiracies is that they have drawn doubt upon the official account. They certainly don’t offer much in the way of a factual alternative.
There are 1000s of websites for and against 9/11. For every ‘anomalous’ fact that has been presented I have read a convincing rebuttal. However, if you wanted to find these you would have done so already, so I won’t go over the same ground.
1. As you say, it’s absolutely true that the US loves its conspiracy theories - and not just Al Qaeda related. There’s JFK , Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison etc. There are also any number of UFO related cover up theories (eg Roswell). Although these are not popular in Islamic circles (so far as I know) they are supported by their fans with the same enthusiasm and the same kind of evidence as 9/11. Many of those same Americans who believe in 9/11 conspiracies also believe in alien abduction and their evidence is (superficially) challenging in the same way.
Look also at the faked moon landing theory. I’ve seen detailed analysis of the films etc - all the same kind of techniques that are displayed by 9/11 theorists.
This suggests that the problem here is a cultural predilection in the US towards conspiracy theories. Note also the popular tv series – X-files, 24, Homeland – which thrive on this culture.
2. Although many Americans do indeed believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, the actual conspiracy they believe in is wildly various and often totally contradictory. For instance, some will say that it was explosives and not planes that brought down the Twin Towers, yet others will claim there were no planes at all. These are not compatible statements. Every theory blows half a dozen other theories out of the water. But the theorists don’t seem to notice this. The number of people coalescing around any one theory is actually much smaller. (Which is one of the things that makes it hard to refute, because people keep shifting the argument to something else.)
3. This leads to another issue which is rarely considered – the strength of these theories lies mostly in their negative evidence, not the positive. By which I mean that they are at their strongest when they are criticizing the official story but weak when they try to replace it with something else. Often this goes no further than saying that some shadowy group must have done it – Dan Brown’s Illuminati, David Icke’s slant-eyed lizards or whoever. How did they do it? This is rarely discussed. Only the official version is required to produce actual evidence, it seems.
4. It’s 10 years since 9/11 yet no paper trail or wikileaks trail has ever proved a conspiracy in the US government or anywhere else. The difficulties of setting up and executing such a plan in total secrecy are breathtaking. Every single secret service organization in history has been penetrated by double agents. (Some suggest that spies are a waste of time for that very reason.) If you believe this is part of a 1,000 year old conspiracy (the Illuminati) then the risk is compounded many, many times by the generations. How would you recruit all these people without it slipping out? No one is that good. It’s impossible.
5. Remember, any failure would result in utter disaster for the group involved and indeed the death penalty for the individuals. Would the coward Bush have risked such a fate? What would he gain? If he knew beforehand, why did he react in such a chaotic and frankly embarrassing way when news of the attack first reached him? Why didn’t he take the opportunity to make himself look good? For this conspiracy, the risks are infinite, the rewards doubtful.
6. And what was all this enormous risk for? To justify invading Afghanistan? You must be kidding. If you’d asked anyone a day before 9/11 I don’t think a single person would have come up with that as a plan. This is all post-rationalisation. The economic cost to the US greatly exceeds any possible economic benefit to particular industries or oil pipeline routes etc, none of which occurred to people at the time.
Or was it in order to invade Iraq? But 9/11 did not provide justification to invade Iraq, which was why the WMD story had to be played up. Afghanistan hindered the Iraq war and vice versa.
And what were the subsequent London Underground attacks for? Or the Madrid station bombings? The suggestion here is that they were to get these countries out
of involvement with Afghanistan etc. So one terrorist attack is to get countries in, and the others are to get them out again? This is ridiculous! There are many other attacks in many countries attributed to and claimed by Muslim terrorists which had no obvious political outcome.
7. The fact is that, if you use your imagination and you're a little bit paranoid, it’s all too easy to dream up motivation for almost any act, by any country. For instance, right now there are people out there who say that the US has a cunning plan not to get involved in Syria. And there is another set of people who claim the US scheme is the exact opposite. One course of events will eventually transpire. After that, every one will forget they ever mentioned a different theory and claim that the conspiracy is proven.
8. In the conspiracy world, where all possibilities have their fans, then you just can’t lose. There is - literally - a conspiracy theory for every occasion.