[goMac]

I thought this article summed it up quite nicely:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm

[Rumor]

This made me laugh.

Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Rumor

This made me laugh.

Sadly I never got my payoff from the Bush administration for inventing my mom's cousin to be the pilot of that flight...

Damned stingy bastards!

[TheWOAT]

I agree. Nicely done. And he avoids the point by point argument crap that those crazies love to get into.

[ink]

There are also a lot of far-right conservatives that subscribe to this theory; one such person was a professor at BYU before he was put on leave for his involvement in the 9/11 truth group. Whether or not he shoud be put on leave for his thoeries is another question...

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ink

There are also a lot of far-right conservatives that subscribe to this theory; one such person was a professor at BYU before he was put on leave for his involvement in the 9/11 truth group. Whether or not he shoud be put on leave for his thoeries is another question...

Now explain why he's "far right" ? or "conservative" ?

He may well be a social conservative, but if he's buying into nutball theories about pre-positioned charges, I wonder what sort of a far right conservative he is.

[ink]

I suspect it's on the libertarian-edge; the same folks who shun all pharmaceuticals and only rely on herbal remedies. I don't know him personally, but have had conversations with people who do know him.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Now explain why he's "far right" ? or "conservative" ?

He may well be a social conservative, but if he's buying into nutball theories about pre-positioned charges, I wonder what sort of a far right conservative he is.

I don't know if this guy is right or left, but it's my impression that the anti-government conspiracy theories are much more a staple of the right than the left.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh.
It's usually pretty humorous when the left gets around to recognizing the obvious.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Heh.
It's usually pretty humorous when the left gets around to recognizing the obvious.

I don't think a lot of the left ever bought into the 9/11 conspiracy. It's the paranoid sections of the left and right that did.

If anything, this guy wrote this article because he was pissed off that the right thinks the whole conspiracy thing is a "left" thing.

[Millennium]

The mainstream Left doesn't buy into the conspiracy theories any more than the mainstream Right. It's all about the lunatic fringes of both sides, and although the far Left is certainly more visible about it, there are probably just as many loons on the far Right that buy into it all. They just don't like drawing attention to themselves as much, since they tend to be the ones in the paramilitary groups.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: while I wouldn't put it past the Bush Administration to consider doing something like this, I don't believe they would actually go through with it. For good or for ill (and probably both), they're businessmen, and businessmen don't like risk unless there is a major benefit over less-risky methods. Even if we accept that these men blindly lust for power -which I don't, but many in this so-called "9/11 Truth" movement do- something like this provides no appreciable gain over less drastic tactics while entailing a hell of a lot more risk. Not a good deal from their perspective.

[TheWOAT]

From what Ive seen, the 9-11 conspiracy is popular amongst young liberals moreso than conservatives. While that theory of Clinton being a drug dealer and murderer was more for the Limbaugh demographic. Then there is that "HIV doesnt cause AIDS" belief held by a couple conservative History professors at a certain school in Northern California that I attended.

Anyways, I think that the 9-11 conspiracy is believed by more than just the lunatic fringes, theyve gotten hold of the lunatic moderates as well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The mainstream Left doesn't buy into the conspiracy theories any more than the mainstream Right. It's all about the lunatic fringes of both sides, and although the far Left is certainly more visible about it, there are probably just as many loons on the far Right that buy into it all.

I realize that claiming the right is equally guilty whenever the left gets caught with its pants down is standard operating proceedure, but I don't buy it.

As far as 9/11 conspiracies, the left (including far more of the 'mainstream' left than many may care to admit) bought -and still buy- into the crazy 9/11 conspiracies than the right. I highly doubt it's right wingers sending a deluge of "****-you" email to Rolling Stone and coughing up all the same tired old "you're helping Bush get away with it!" crap simply because the author stated the obvious. It's clear that he was surprized that doing so goes against some firmly held beliefs of much of his readership that are the types taken in by crap like Loose Change, and yes, Virginia, those would mostly be leftists.

Now are there crazy conspircies that the right buys into? I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority of the inane 'blame Bush' 9/11 conspiracy lunacy is the domain of the left.

[BRussell]

I was curious about the numbers, so I found this fairly recent poll.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

As far as 9/11 conspiracies, the left (including far more of the 'mainstream' left than many may care to admit) bought -and still buy- into the crazy 9/11 conspiracies than the right.

...

Now are there crazy conspircies that the right buys into? I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority of the inane 'blame Bush' 9/11 conspiracy lunacy is the domain of the left.

You're in a topic full of leftwingers who don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. So far, not one left winger has come in here to defend the conspiracy theory. That alone should tell you the the conspiracy nuts are not common in the left.

In the theme of your own post, the right is following the usual operating procedure of blaming the liberals for everything. The author of this article wrote an entire column about how the 9/11 conspiracy is not a liberal thing. In fact, he even jokes about how it could be a rumor started by the conservatives simply to have something to pin on the liberals to make them look bad.

[Krusty]

Well, I'll be happy to be the first left wing nut who buys into a conspiracy theory .... sort of.

I don't buy into a conspiracy theory that implies a sinister Neo-con plot to blow up the towers. However, I think that it is entirely possible that, given the buidlings' prior history with terror attacks that it may well have been wired for implosion in the event that another attack happened.

In other words, if it looked like the towers were in danger of potentially toppling and crushing dozens of buildings and/or killing 10s of thousands of people, there may well have been some sort of decision to pull the trigger and have the tower collapse in the least destructive way possilble ... a straight down implosion that had the least possibility of physical damage to other building and to human lives.

So, I'd call this the "benevlolent conspiracy" theory ... one which accomodates the idea that it was an unplanned surprise attack, allows for the physical evidence which implies that the towers may have had some help coming down, and doesn't require some evil-doer in the background conspiring against the country but perhaps someone charged with the task of choosing the lesser of two evils in an extreme situation.

Now ... I'm not saying that is the "truth" ... it may well be the case that the official story is entirely correct but to me, that is the most realistic "conspiracy" scenario if one did exist.

[Rumor]

It was Bush and Dick flying those planes into the WTC. They just jumped out last minute and that footage of them was edited out by the conservative media.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Krusty

I don't buy into a conspiracy theory that implies a sinister Neo-con plot to blow up the towers. However, I think that it is entirely possible that, given the buidlings' prior history with terror attacks that it may well have been wired for implosion in the event that another attack happened.

In other words, if it looked like the towers were in danger of potentially toppling and crushing dozens of buildings and/or killing 10s of thousands of people, there may well have been some sort of decision to pull the trigger and have the tower collapse in the least destructive way possilble ... a straight down implosion that had the least possibility of physical damage to other building and to human lives.

it's an interesting theory, but it requires a concern for safety which I'm not sure is compatible with wiring such huge buildings with remote-controlled explosives. Any malfunction would have brought the building down on tens of thousands of people with basically no hope for escape. Worse, an explosion inside the building (as occurred with the previous WTC bombings) would very likely have triggered exactly that sort of malfunction. It's a basically good idea, but it's just too risky.

In fact, the fact that the buildings lasted as long as they did could be considered evidence against the theory. The odds of the system malfunctioning and bringing the buildings down right then would be quite high, yet that didn't happen: they stood for an astonishingly long time given that they'd just had 747s flown into them.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

You're in a topic full of leftwingers who don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. So far, not one left winger has come in here to defend the conspiracy theory. That alone should tell you the the conspiracy nuts are not common in the left.

No, it just says that this thread isn't populated by the likes of those who read and write Democratic Underground and DailyKos.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I realize that claiming the right is equally guilty whenever the left gets caught with its pants down is standard operating proceedure, but I don't buy it.

blah, blah, blah, pot, kettle.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

No, it just says that this thread isn't populated by the likes of those who read and write Democratic Underground and DailyKos.

I've never been to DU, but I read Kos periodically, and I've never seen those kinds of theories. They have millions of people posting all kinds of their own stuff, so who knows what every person who posts there says. But I haven't seen Kos or any of his regulars endorse "Bush did it" 9/11 theories.

[ironknee]

dumb liberal conspiracy nuts...giving so much credit to bush and dick

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

:In fact, he even jokes about how it could be a rumor started by the conservatives simply to have something to pin on the liberals to make them look bad.

So now we have a kook conspiracy theory to try and explain why liberals often believe in kook conspiracy theories and of course, it's the conservatives' fault!

The only reason such a joke would even be funny, is that there's probably a kook element of the left that actually does believe this!

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Well, I'll be happy to be the first left wing nut who buys into a conspiracy theory .... sort of.

I don't buy into a conspiracy theory that implies a sinister Neo-con plot to blow up the towers. However, I think that it is entirely possible that, given the buidlings' prior history with terror attacks that it may well have been wired for implosion in the event that another attack happened.

In other words, if it looked like the towers were in danger of potentially toppling and crushing dozens of buildings and/or killing 10s of thousands of people, there may well have been some sort of decision to pull the trigger and have the tower collapse in the least destructive way possilble ... a straight down implosion that had the least possibility of physical damage to other building and to human lives.

So, I'd call this the "benevlolent conspiracy" theory ... one which accomodates the idea that it was an unplanned surprise attack, allows for the physical evidence which implies that the towers may have had some help coming down, and doesn't require some evil-doer in the background conspiring against the country but perhaps someone charged with the task of choosing the lesser of two evils in an extreme situation.

Now ... I'm not saying that is the "truth" ... it may well be the case that the official story is entirely correct but to me, that is the most realistic "conspiracy" scenario if one did exist.

The most realistic?! I thought the anti-evolution crowd were the dumb part of America.
Demolition experts in the Netherlands have looked at it(thanks to the Loose Change video) and they can tell with 100% certainty that no explosives were involved in taking down the WTC. There were zero indications of any involvement of explosives. And the way it went down was perfectly normal according to the given circumstances.

[TheWOAT]

Don't let facts get in the way of fantasy.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

The most realistic?!

You think its more realistic that Bush and Cheney conspired to allow the attacks to happen ? I didn't say it was probable ... just more realistic than the "evil conspiracy" ideas.

Demolition experts in the Netherlands have looked at it(thanks to the Loose Change video) and they can tell with 100% certainty that no explosives were involved in taking down the WTC. There were zero indications of any involvement of explosives. And the way it went down was perfectly normal according to the given circumstances.

Link ?

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Krusty

You think its more realistic that Bush and Cheney conspired to allow the attacks to happen ? I didn't say it was probable ... just more realistic than the "evil conspiracy" ideas.

Well yeah, that would be more realistic or more probable than the explosives nonsense.

Link ?

Controlled Demolition Expert on WTC1 and WTC2 @ YouTube

They also looked at the Pentagon Attack.

Or send an email to Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). Maybe they'll answer your questions, who knows.