I'll play the conspiracy theorist and answer that, PSM.

The nation really rallied behind the domestic terror threat. People get scared and they are more willing to be supportive of military action. I won't even argue that fear isn't used regularly by authorities to influence public opinion. That sure as hell doesn't mean that was the case this time though.

@PSM ... The actual answer - it doesn't matter because we didn't make the attack. In a hypothetical scenario, that'd make no sense at all.

@MM ... Yes, all. There has not been a conspiracy that hasn't yet been debunked. Feel free to look for one. All the crazy people I have friended on Facebook have turned to posting something about a prophetic triangle between the Empire State Building and the towers or something like that. That's how desperate the conspiracists are on this one.

@Bo: 'There has not been a conspiracy that hasn't yet been debunked.'

Can you clarify something? a conspiracy means a group of people secretly working toward some goal - perhaps an illegal one.

9/11 was, according to the US government, a conspiracy - of a number of Islamic extremists to blow up some Americans.

What do you mean when you say 'there has not been a conspiracy which hasn't been debunked' ?

A conspiracy theory, ora. It was an act of terrorism. Saying anything else is subscribing to a conspiracy theory.

blankflag, some of the newer antipsychotic medications have reduced side effects. If you want to live a normal life like a normal person you might consider Ivega® or Latuda®. Just give it some thought.

The problem with most conspiracy theories is they ascribe far too much to the organizational and social control to purported conspiratorial organizations and groups. In the cold war both the CIA and KGB intentionally built on the natural paranoiac fantasies of the general populace to create an image of super human ability. The reality is all human organizations are rife with confusion, disorganization, dissension, and incompetence.

The more moving parts in a conspiracy theory, the more likely it is bunk.

Sorry.

Another thing to consider, is paranoid delusions. Schizophrenia has an incidence of approximately 1% of the world population. Chances are you know people with paranoid delusions and you may not know who they are. In earlier centuries delusions typically had a religious subject and plot. In the modern era a large proportion of paranoid schizophrenics fixate on the CIA, the FBI and such.

Just keep that in mind, the next time you strike up a conversation with a truther.

In some ways that's relevant, dirge, but one having schizophrenia (or being sociopathic) doesn't have to diminish from one's credibility.

sociopaths have credibility except insofar as they tend to manipulate and lie.

schizophrenics are fine persons but do have a habit of developing and holding on to delusory beliefs.

This does IN FACT reduce credibility. Bo sox. But thanks for your input.

It's very easy to hold onto delusory beliefs without being schizophrenic. Neither are exclusive of each other and both are equally possible with or without the other.

What the fuck bosox? We're talking about conspiracy theories and you want to debate schizophrenia.

So what are you saying? Delusions have the same rate of incidence among non schizophrenics as they do among schizophrenics? How the F do you think the condition is diagnosed in the first place?

"The problem with most conspiracy theories is they ascribe far too much to the organizational and social control to purported conspiratorial organizations and groups."

Had to laugh at this, because it's the same argument truthers use when people suggest that an attack on the scale of 9/11 could've been orchestrated by some guy living in a mud brick house with no electricity in the poorest country on earth.

Now you're assuming delusions automatically lead to conspiracy theories, dirge. Anyway, schizophrenia is much, much more than delusions and hallucinations.

"What the fuck bosox? We're talking about conspiracy theories and you want to debate schizophrenia."

Um... you *did* just suggest that all "conspiracy theorists" might by schizophrenics.

"Had to laugh at this, because it's the same argument truthers use when people suggest that an attack on the scale of 9/11 could've been orchestrated by some guy living in a mud brick house with no electricity in the poorest country on earth."

They may use the argument but it is laughable. Bin laudin was far from poor. The operation, well known now was fairly straight forward involving box cutters, piloting classes and training on microsoft flight simulator.

The individual participants were not afghani herders.

"Um... you *did* just suggest that all "conspiracy theorists" might by schizophrenics."

AND bosox is putting forth that schizophrenics are no more delusional than anyone else. It is an absurd argument that detracts from the point.

@bo "Now you're assuming delusions automatically lead to conspiracy theories, dirge. Anyway, schizophrenia is much, much more than delusions and hallucinations."

Paranoid delusions, by and large, involve conspiracies.

"The individual participants were not afghani herders."

No, they weren't. Just like not all government people are bumbling doofuses who are too incompetent to have pulled off something like 9/11.

Do you have any real world experience with schizophrenics, dirge?

So everyone with schizophrenia is a conspiracy theorist. Or every conspiracy theorist is a schizophrenic. Same thing - I think?

Besides everything else, the inside job advocates cannot solve the issue of motive.

Why Afghanistan? Prior to the attacks, the Taliban wasn't a problem for the United States. They were about to agree on a pipeline deal, and we were sending them some aid to eliminate the poppy crop. They even visited Texas. They were friendly with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - longstanding American allies. They were hostile to Iran, a longstanding enemy. They fit our geopolitical strategy perfectly. What's not to like?

If the claim is because a war was planned for Iraq, and the government knew it could flip public outrage about 9-11 onto Saddam Hussein after some obligatory attack on Afghanistan, I have a question. Why didn't the conspirators do a better job of tying the false flag hijackers to Iraq, thus enabling the US to bypass Afghanistan altogether?

welcome back Putin!

"They were about to agree on a pipeline deal..."

The pipeline deal was scrubbed before 9/11. But as soon as the Taliban were toppled, reviving it was the top priority of Satrap Karzai (who had worked for Unocal previously, IIRC).

"eliminate the poppy crop."

Pre-Taliban Afghanistan was supplying something like 80-90% of the worlds opium IIRC. Considering CIA involvement in the international drug trade, a sudden and drastic reduction in opium production likely would have made them very unhappy. Considering that the Afghan Satrapy and the American occupation forces have turned a blind eye to the resurgent opium production, this could well be one motive.

"Why didn't the conspirators do a better job of tying the false flag hijackers to Iraq, thus enabling the US to bypass Afghanistan altogether? "

They didn't need to. IIRC, polling showed more than 50% of Americans believed in 2002 that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The one effort they made in this direction (a meeting that didn't happen between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague) was almost instantly debunked. Why try to come up with more fake ties when the public was already on your side?

jesus christ there's a lot of pieces of work on this forum.

I have a parent with schizophrenia, so yes, I know a little something about it.

occam's razor, people. Occam's fucking razor.

Holy shit is that Putin

what up man!

also dirge what the hell your entire tangent made no sense

scramble your password and log out