As opposed to the anonymous cinemagauche. But CG doesn’t care anymore about his own inconsistency; he’s having too good a time as a brave guerrilla fighter on the internet.

OK you’ve settled our hash CG. Take a break, enjoy a good drink, tell your admiring friends how you poked through the bars and made the Americans roar.

“I pray you, speak not; he grows
worse and worse;
Question enrages him. At once, good-night:
Stand not upon the order of your going,
But go at once.”

The irony of this statement. Sorry, cinema stage left, it’s a waste of time arguing with a fanatical true believer.

“when the anthrax turned out to be US military grade - it was hushed up in the media”

Hmm, the NYT, Slate, KOS, and many other anti-Bush newspapers and websites kowtowing to the Bush conspiracy masters? Now, I really do think you’ve lost it.

“You are positing, though, that Bush would go through all the trouble of manufacturing 911 merely to create an atmosphere, or set the groundwork for future interventions against yet undetermined nations. That is a real stretch… Anyone as bent on invading Iraq as Bush would have implicated Iraq somehow in 911.”

dokdoforever, its not a stretch, its a reality. The War on Terror was summoned up in order to invade Iraq. So yes Iraq was implicated in 9/11. Weren’t you around when Bush started linking the two in speeches? In fact, da New York Times/CBS poll at the time showed that 45 percent of Americans believed Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11.

9/11 was also used to implement new restrictions on the domestic population. The Patriot Act and Anti-Terrorism Act materialized miraculously out of nowhere just a few weeks after the attacks. An anthrax mail attack was used to further frighten Congress into passing these bills. (when the anthrax turned out to be US military grade - it was hushed up in the media.)

When you ask the question every investigator must ask in a homocide case: ‘cui bono’ - who benefits? - it was clearly the Bush team - and certainly not muslims or Al Qaida.

Imagine the US wanted use a fake attack to build support to invade North Korea. Blaming North Korean agents for blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge, or planting a dirty bomb in LA would be alot more effective than blaming the Tamil Tigers.

And, I disagree with you about Bush needing 911 to intervene in Afghanistan. The US primarily relied on airpower in Afghanistan, just as it did against Serbia/ Yugoslavia. The Taleban were not popular in the West and Bush could have stepped up support to Tajik rebels without too much trouble. 911 sealed the deal, but was totally out of proportion to US goals in Afghanistan.

So, there may be weaknesses in the government’s case, but like any exercise in assessing the validity of different theories, your explanation has to be stronger for us to discard the official version. The key problem, though is the weak causal link between the plan (fake 911 attack) and Bush’s objective (invading Iraq). Anyone as bent on invading Iraq as Bush would have implicated Iraq somehow in 911.

Sonagi, discrepancies in the official story do not logically lead to a conclusion of conspiracy.

Agreed. Discrepancies in the official government account are far less incredulous than absurd theories that the government deliberately let 9/11 happen, or still worse, actually carried it out.

Who do the conspiracy theorists claim were on those planes? Oh, I forgot, some theorists claim there were no real planes, only missiles and fake airliners. Please, cinemagauche, give it a rest. The conspiracy theories on 9/11 are hopelessly ridiculous. You are not helping Ron Paul by subscribing to this kind of nuttiness. Please take a look at the website I gave a link to. The writer describes most conspiracy theorists as not really being qualified to make the claims they do and that none have submitted their work for peer review in publications recognized in relevant fields.

Ron Paul has said he sees the need for setting up a new independent investigative body to look into 9/11. I applaud him.

“America is a quarter of a billion people totally misinformed and disinformed by their government. This is tragic but our media is — I wouldn’t even say corrupt — it’s just beyond telling us anything that the government doesn’t want us to know.” Gore Vidal

http://www.debunking911.com/

Sorry for not doing the link right, I don’t know how to do it properly.

Why should the government be forthcoming in debunking all of the discrepancies? It would be nice if they would do it, but politically it may make more sense to say nothing, because addressing discrepancies could give legitimacy to extremist nuts. There may be very legitimate (rational) reasons why a government does anything (in almost all cases in a democracy this is true, as much as I may hate such actions), but why do some jump to the most extreme conclusions at the drop of a hat?

“Bush is insane. He has been recently threatening WWIII. But snow, your ‘logic’ is based on the false premise that people do not commit murder if they know the risks and punishment are too great. Talk to any homocide detective and they’ll tell you different.”

Ouch, you guys are too much. Bush is not insane, a Hitler, a moron or whatever adjective you want to pull out of your butt to describe him. Geez, I feel sorry for Ron Paul if his supporters include lots of conspiracy theorists. What Americans don’t want are extremists in office. It doesn’t help Paul’s campaign to be surrounded by extremists. I like alot about Ron Paul (and admired and was inspired by Harry Browne), though I suspect that Paul’s foreign policy ideas are naive and totally unsuited to the realities of world geopolitics.