9/11 was an outside job

[Magnus]

salaam.

only God knows, but I think the official version of the events of 2001.09.11 is close to what actually happened.

I don't think any real 9/11 conspiracy theory exists in the proper sense of the word. I have yet to encounter even a conspiracy hypothesis that comes close to offer a more plausible explanation for what occurred.

A good description of any complex historical event/situation, such as 9/11, is one that gives plausible explanations for the entire chain of events, well supported in evidence. 

Pointing at inconsistencies in the official account does not form a competing explanation, and without a competing explanation I don't see how anyone can reasonably believe in a great conspiracy other than one carried out by 19 highjackers and their supporters.

If you believe in the great 9/11 conspiracy I would be glad to discuss this in more detail in this thread.
However, I'm not interested in reading or commenting on linked material. Write your own arguments please!

[Rana]

Salaam Magnus.

I also accept the official version. It's my belief that Muslims are quite capable of doing something like this. Sure, it's not what we are taught, it's not the way of Allah, but if they call themselves Muslims and believe themselves to be Muslims then it's my view they are. Most of my friends believe it was a conspiracy basically to make us look bad. I find this laughable. Many things which happened after the actual 9/11 events are a different matter, but 9/11 itself seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Magnus]

salaam Rana.
Muslims are plenty capable of doing deeds like 9/11. I have encountered the same line of thinking; "muslims never do bad things, so the jews did it". This is just absurd. It's easier to believe in a small group of misguided muslims with a bold and simple plan than a gigantic super-conspiracy carried out with such precision and stealth that nobody has managed to uncover any evidence - any alternative conspiracy hypothesis would involve thousands of people, all motivated to commit a treasonous crime and never utter a word about it. Any such plan would require super-human planning, organizing and execution. Frankly, I see very little evidence for that kind of competency anywhere in the world. Mossad is arguably the most skilled organization of it's kind in the world. They are really good at what they do, but they are also just people, and their agents sometimes get caught.

This ascribing a nebulous foe superhuman powers leads to other examples of unbacked claims. HAARP is a device that creates earthquakes/tsunamis/floods in pakistan. Vaccines and flouride is really about mind control. Civilian airliners routinely spray chemicals that do something bad to us or the planet.

There are plenty of real conspiracies and real injustices in this world. I think false conspiracies is a distraction, and that is why I made this thread. It would be a good thing, I think, keep all the conspiracy talk to a single thread, or a single subforum, or something. I also think every effort should be made to keep the discussion civil, reasonable and productive. What say the moderators?

[Rana]

I have encountered the same line of thinking; "muslims never do bad things, so the jews did it". This is just absurd.

Exactly.

I tell you those Jews must be sooo bad, lol. Nevermind that I don't know if I've ever even met a Jew. We certainly don't have any in our town but that doesn't stop much of our community being very suspicious of their motives anyway.

HAARP is a device that creates earthquakes/tsunamis/floods in pakistan.

[Magnus]

I find it reasonable to think HAARP might actually have a somewhat different purpose than the one stated. That still doesn't change the fact that it's just a really big radio antenna, and nobody save God has any powers over storms, floods and earthquakes.

The "moon landing hoax" theory is one that I actually like. Unlike the other theories this one has at least a somewhat plausible alternative explanation, and occam's razor doesn't only slice one way. For example it would arguably be easier, cheaper and safer to fake a moon landing than actually doing it, with 1960's technology no less.
I am convinced men actually walked on the moon, just to be clear.

[Duke]

I believe the official version of events of 9-11, however I don't believe the moon walk ever happened. How is it that man walked on the Moon in the sixties but can barely get into space now. That's backwards technology. Let me get back on topic. All religions are capable of terrorist attacks not just Muslims. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was a "devout" Christian but nobody blames Christians for it. Yet Bill O'Reilly gets on tv and says The Muslims attacked the Twin Towers like it was all the Muslims who joined together to attack the US.

[Magnus]

salaam Duke.

I am in agreement with you regarding the hypocrisy of the media in regards to terrorism. "Terrorism" is not a meaningful definition, since the word is supposed to mean "their" political violence, not "ours". When "we" bomb them, it's justified warfare for a just cause, when "they" bomb us, it's a heinous crime. The problem is that there is no way "terror" can be properly defined to mean what western politicians  and media want to imply it means. Murder is murder.

As for the moon landing, I don't think its off topic. The thread should perhaps be renamed "9/11 and other conspiracies".

How is it that man walked on the Moon in the sixties but can barely get into space now. That's backwards technology.

The explanation for why space flight has regressed is that the Americans threw huge amounts of money and resources at the problem in the sixties, politically motivated by rivalry with the Soviets for supremacy in space flight. Once the Americans felt the space race was won, it was no longer politically motivated to fund NASA in such an extravagant manner.
After the Apollo program, NASA set a new course with the space shuttle. This turned out to be a huge and costly mistake, in my opinion. Saturn-Apollo was a highly conventional design with a vertical rocket stack and a light, relatively simple ballistic capsule on top. While it was a huge and very expensive rocket, it was perfectly suited for the task at hand, i.e. landing men on the moon.
The shuttle design, by comparison, was based on the notion that recycling and re-using spacecraft components (both the orbiter and the solid rocket boosters) would decrease cost dramatically and make manned space flight cheap. The shuttle is unable to go higher (faster, really) than low earth orbit (LEO), primarily because the orbiter is hugely more heavy than the Apollo capsules were. That's the fundamental problem of the space shuttle. It's large, heavy and terribly complicated. The whole idea of re-using the main liquid engines, the heat shield, the boosters, and the using of large wings to glide back to earth like and airplane (rather than using parachutes like Apollo) led to a compromised design, an unsafe and terribly complicated spacecraft that is limited to certain types of missions in LEO. It also drained NASA's budget to the point that they have been unable to do any other type of manned space flight, for example more moon exploration or an expedition to Mars.   

Arguably there has been huge advances made in space flight since the Apollo program, but the progress has been in unmanned missions. NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have flown probes that have given scientist much more interesting data than the moon landings ever did. Voyager, Cassini and other probes have visited all the outer planets and many of their moon. Viking and the rovers have taught us many things about Mars. There's projects like Stardust, a probe that flew through the tail of a comet and brought particle samples back to earth for analysis. There's Hubble, and other space telescopes, from which we have learned lots about the universe. Asteroids have been visited, poked and prodded, all done by robots. Rockets have gotten smaller and cheaper since Apollo, which might be seen as technological regression. On the other hand events in space flight since the 60's has proven that machines can do more science cheaper that humans can.

[Alen]

salaam Rana.
Muslims are plenty capable of doing deeds like 9/11.

Hi.

What would be the reason for this act?
Remember cause and effect?
What would those people who done it, gain?
If they really hate USA, why attack only Twin Towers?

God knows BEST.

[Duke]

Salaam Magnus,

It seems that you have a much more in depth knowledge of space travel than I do. I just don't see how you can do something and not be much better at it 40 or 50 years later as a civilization in regards to manned space flight. You're  probably correct though. Let me ask you a question Magnus. Do you remember when Good 'ole George Bush was talking about going back to the Moon? What was that about? Aside from the fun of jumping around and walking in almost zero gravity I don't see the point. I must say you really surprise me with your knowledge of the space program I give you kudos brother for a well written informative rebuttal.

[Magnus]

salaam

What would be the reason for this act?
Remember cause and effect?
What would those people who done it, gain?
If they really hate USA, why attack only Twin Towers?

They didn't only attack the twin towers. A third plane struck the pentagon and a fourth crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. This plane might reasonably have been heading for the capitol or the white house, making 9/11 a partially successful strike at symbols of U.S political, financial and military power

The thought process of the highjackers is unknown to me. Osama bin Laden has made his motives known however. One of his stated goals was to draw the U.S. into muslim lands so that muslim fighters would gain the home field advantage. I would say he has succeeded in this. NATO  walked right into a trap in invading Afghanistan. No military victory is possible there for the western powers, any more than it was possible for the Soviets, or any other imperial power that has tried to conquer that land previously.

Duke: thanks. I've been a rocket geek since I was a kid. My impression is that Bush's talk about going back to the moon was just political theater - the "bold initiative" was never backed by the necessary funding increase to actually go back to the moon, which NASA would be quite capable of doing if they had the resources for it. NASA is retiring its three unexploded space shuttles in just a few months now. The Americans have no replacement spacecraft ready, and will be entirely without manned space flight capacity. There's some "technological regression" for you, even if I think it's about politics and resource allocation rather than technological capacity.

As for what to actually do on the moon, there's no really good answer to that question today, and none that justifies the expenses in my opinion. The people who have gone there already gathered some rocks and brought them back to earth. I guess people could go back to gather some more rocks, but robots could do that for a small fraction of the cost, if more moon rocks are deemed a necessity. There are other things that can be done on the moon too. There's water at the poles, and constant sunlight, which if combined could make the moon something of a gas station for rockets heading elsewhere in the solar system. There's radio silence on the far side, which might be good for certain types of radio astronomy. There are some useful minerals up there, as well as a relative abundance of helium-3, which is almost nonexistent on earth. Some speculate that this isotope is the ideal fuel for nuclear fusion. This type of stuff is just "what if-technology" rather than something we can actually do today or in the foreseeable future, God knows best.

As a side note, the Russians are still doing manned flights to LEO with the Vostok rocket and Soyuz capsule, derived from late 1950's designs. A spacecraft that is essentially older than Saturn-Apollo is still flying today, with the best safety record in the business. When the Americans got completely sidetracked with the shuttle, the Russians decided not to fix what wasn't broken.