25 Questions that Undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement

This list of questions was recently posted on NeoAetheism.com and was addressed to those naysayers who don't believe the official US administrations explanation after investigations into 9/11. Most recently these naysayers have started using film as a medium to convey their doubts - as witnessed in such productions as Loose Change and Press For Truth.

I sent the link, which can be found here, to my friend Matt who has an interest in this subject and he just replied with his set of answers, which I thought I'd post.

The questions are in this normal grey colour, Matts responses in red and my comments in white.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the link. Here's my answers:25 Questions that undermine the “9/11 Truth Movement”:

Question #1. If the government was willing to slaughter 3,000 people for a political agenda, why haven’t inconveniences like Dylan Avery and Steven Earl Jones been silenced?

Mass slaughter is not the same as assasinating or disappearing someone. Slaughter is inconceivable.

Conspiracy theorists will always exist, and they can always be painted as extremists and lunatics by the powers that be. Silencing them would have no purpose when they can just be discredited. Hell, look what happens to someone who has a legitimate complaint when they take on the right-wing media...

Question #2. Why was not one of the plane hijackers from Afghanistan or Iraq? Why were most of them from Saudi Arabia? Doesn’t that place the U.S. in a negative light?

D'er. Bin Laden? Is he not from Saudi Arabian royal stock with hugh oil interests? And, er yes, I guess that does cast a gloomy picture of the US. Come to think of it why has Iraq been 'bombed back to the stone age'?

It's not like the US administration personally hired these hi-jackers - they didn't take out help wanted ads in local papers. Osama Bin Laden, once an employee of the US, was exactly the right person to do the job. A quick word in his ear would be all that would be required to instigate this plan. When people say the US government was behind it, they don't mean they did all the planning, phone calls and photocopying - it means they were aware of the machinations in place and willfully chose to ignore them so as to create a war of distraction and create an unified, utopian, Christian country.

And as for the Saudi thing - yes it make them look bad, but they probably thought they could cover up the truth and succeed on the basis of their propaganda. They believed themselves to be the bastion of truth and that people would trust in them whatever they said. Alas, it was same theory for Scooter Libby, Ken Lay, Haliburton and, oh, the Iraq invasion.

Question #3. Why has as leftists claim no WMD been found in Iraq? Couldn’t the Bush administration easily plant them there?

Well obviously not. Plus, couldn’t the Bush administration easily plant lies in peoples minds to make them believe that WMD were there. That's seems a lot easier?

That doesn't matter. What matters is they got to invade Iraq, got to invade Afghanistan, got to topple both governments and replace them with their own puppet presidents and, most importantly, seize control of their oil. Like they're trying to do with Iran right now. The ends justify the means. WMD? Yesterdays news and they know it.

Question #4. When Bush was told about the 9/11 attack in that classroom on that morning, why did he sit there for seven minutes? Why didn’t he in an act, display himself as a hero that was going to counteract the wrong that was done against our nation?

I have been wondering about that also for sometime.

Yup. Me too. This isn't about the US administration planning the attacks. It's about instigating a chain of events that they can control and use to their benefit. It's doubtful Bush ever knew this was going to happen... he couldn't, it's way too risky. But Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example, could.

The overall idea behind all this was to provide an enemy for the Amercian public so, trembling in fear, they would align themselves behind their president and give carte blanche to the administration to do whatever was neccessary. This of course would provide cover for any foreign policy changes and any invasions that may need to be done to cover the enormous dependancy the US has on foreign, and mostly middle-eastern, oil. Problem is, the president wigged out and froze and didn't display himself to be the hero that he should have been - he did exactly the opposite. Much like in Iraq where they didn't embrace the US invasion and started fighting back.

Question #5. How is it that the Bush administration executed the most cleverly orchestrated conspiracy of all time but was not able to cover up a minor hunting incident involving Dick Cheney?

Bit more at stake perhaps?

You need to lose the idea of a conspiracy - it's not like 24 with President Logan taking secret phone calls in the Oval Office, it's about a chain of events being triggered that play, ultimately, to Western interest. There's nothing to cover up, except almost a willful desire to ignore any advance warning.

Question #6. Why is it that Arabs across the Middle East danced in the streets with joy over 9/11? Were they paid off by the C.I.A.? You can view the Middle East response by text or check out a documentary showcasing it here.

No. They truly hate the US.

Jeez. These questions are written by a guy who's read the Da Vinci Code one too many times. You think that the whole Arab response was orchestrated? Stupid question.

Question #7. Now Bush devised 9/11 with the intention to blame Muslims right? Why pray tell did he allow the granting of a visa to terrorist sponsor Mohammad Khatami? The former dictator of Iran? At the Islamic Society of North America, he had this to say,” As America claims to be fighting terrorism, it implements policies that cause the intensification of terrorism and institutionalized violence… Public opinion can be rescued from the grips of ignorance and blunder and the domination of arrogant, warmongering and violence-triggering policies will end.” During the Israel-Lebanon conflict he described Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.” Wouldn’t Bush do whatever it took to maintain his credibility and thus not let him in?

No? I don't know the man. Nor do I trust him.

All these question utterly miss the point of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It's not about absolute control - you're imagining a fascistic society from the 1940s - it's about a political landscape that allows for the dominance of one ideology over another. Dissidence is good. Opinion is good. It creates the impression of a free society. Why would the Administraion (I'm not saying President here as it's stupid to imply that he was the mastermind) orchestrate such events and then become fascistic in nature immediately afterwards? Again, stupid question.

Question #8. Why did the draft that the likes of John Kerry kept parroting never come into occurrence?

Draft of what?

The military draft is a subject that's brought up whenever America enters a conflict. It has no relevance here.

Question #9. If George W. Bush invaded Iraq for oil, why did it take three years for the oil production there to rise above pre-war levels?

You're right! That is a bit slow. Also, funny oil production's now up, but the country's in civil war. Odd?

Again, what do you imagine? They invade Iraq and the first step is the oilfields? That would be an acknowledgment of their real intentions. The Iraq oil production has stayed out of the headlines and allowed to slowly build. Who cares about that when there's American soldiers dying? That is such a naive question.

The more interesting points to note are the speed with which the Taliban government were ousted and given an ex-Oil lobbyist as a president instead, and the fact that US Peak Oil Production occured sometime in the early 1970s. The three largest untapped oil reserves in the world are in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Kazikstan. Invaded one, tried to invade another and courting the last with promises of investment.

Question #10. Why has there been not a single structural engineering expert that has come forward saying 9/11 was done by the government?

They're all a bunch of wussie squares. Oh, and they don't want to loose their safe little jobs, or the use of their legs in some freak road accident.

Who says they haven't? Who said they tried and were discredited by the Administration and ignored by the media.

Question #11. There are allegations that a missile hit the pentagon. As shown by the pictures in this computer simulation showing light poles sliced in two, how could a missile do this? The "9/11 Truth Movement" still has yet to explain the enormous eyewitness accounts found here and here.

They were paid off or made up?

I'd still like to know how a plane vaporised on impact when that's proven to be physically impossible. Seriously. Missile or no missle, where's the remains on the fucking plane?

Question #12. There’s no dispute that two planes hit the world trade centers. Were men of the C.I.A. willing to die for the Bush administration by flying the planes?

Were the office workers prepared to take one for the president?

Good god! These really are stupid questions. They were real Arabs, with a real willingness to die. They weren't CIA men browned up and putting on silly accents.

Question #13. What is the difference when the religious can not explain an event and say “God did it!” and conspiracy theorists who can not explain an event and say “Bush did it!”?

Come to think of it, I now think God did it. Bush moves in the most mysterious ways.

Those planes really hit those towers, and somewhere down the line someone really allowed this to happen. God did not throw the planes. Is this question meant to be philisophical or rhetorical? Either way, the two are incomparable.

It's these sort of opinions that contribute directly to idea that anyone who questions the official line is a conspiracy nut. It's irresponsable and it's naive. I don't agree with everything in Loose Change - in fact I thing much of it is pretty flimsy - but, good grief, they're valid questions and we deserve answers.

Question #14. How come Bill Clinton isn't said to be part of the conspiracy? Didn't he let Osama Bin Laden go numerous times?

Yeah. But I kinda liked the fella. ;)

Yeah, all you have to do is check the signatures on all those pardons that Osama received. I could go on about Clinton being terrorised to distraction by Republican hitmen over a sexual misdemeanor and use Bosnia as an example but that would give further weight to the validity of these questions. I will say, though, that Cheney and Rumsfeld have been in the Administration since before Reagan (who, lest we forget, employed Bin Laden in the first place and gave him the funding and training he needed). Presidents are puppets, it's the people controlling the strings you need to worry about.

Question #15. Applying Occam's razor, don't we come to the conclusion that human incompetence would be the most reasonable explanation for the 9/11 tragedy?

Isn't that like saying the towers were pushed over?

Greed, my friend, is the most reasonable explanation for the 9/11 tragedy. That and a near divine belief that you, and only you, are right.

Question #16. Seeing as how most of the war conspiracies have to do with oil endeavors, why has the United States placed an oil embargo on Iran for quite some time now?

Coz they've got Iraq (and numerous others)

Two reasons; The first is to keep the world oil production at a steady level - an influx of the stuff would be as bad for the economy as a shortage. These people aren't stupid - they're ex-oil men for Christs sake. It's not about having all the oil in the world NOW, it's about controlling the supply in the future.
The second has to do with alliance - Iran famously sold their oil in Euros, not dollars, which undermined the US currency. That was when the 'Iran could make a bomb' stories first emerged (incidentally, Halliburton have been selling nuclear enrichment technology to Iran since 2000 - which was when Bush and Cheney dismantled the 'selling nuclear materials to rogue nations' law - arguing it was against the free speech rights of corporations to restrict who they can do business with). Iran, also incidentally, was a friend of the US during the initial war on terror but found their offers of negotiation flatly ignored once Afghanistan was conquored. They then appeared as one of the 'axis of evil' which gave fuel to the anti-US sentiment that was brewing.

Anyway. Iran is with China. China is the new world superpower and has unprecidented control over the US because of their overwhelming import / export ratio. Obviously you can't fuck with the Chinese, but you can fuck with their major oil supplier.

Question #17. What fascist government in history has butchered thousands of people only then to let people openly protest it across the country?

France

Heh. Good answer. It's also worth noting that the US aren't (at least openly) a fascistic government. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, why bother controlling people when you can make them think they're free?

Question #18. Taking the conspiracy at face value, why aren't aren't the "9/11 Truthers" getting the hell out of the United States? Wouldn't they be gravely afraid from a government that just menacingly slaughtered three thousand of its own citizens?

No. There is an American constitution still. Just about.

Dude, that's a stupid fucking question.

Question #19. Wouldn't a 9/11 conspiracy demonstrate the horrific consequence of big government? So why are "9/11 Truthers" still consistently for government based solutions (Medicare, Social Security, welfare, etc., and even government education)?

Coz they aren't all a bunch of Anarchists.

Ignoring how loaded and inaccurately phrased your question is (there's that suggestion that you're either one or the other again - how people love to polarise an issue) it is still retarded. Asking questions about the most significant event of our generation and believing in the basic requirements of government to provide services and aid for its population are utterly unconnected.

Question #20. How can it be that the "9/11 Truthers" believe in such a sinister government and at the same time want to deprive the common man the tools to stop it (being for gun control)?

Oh God. That's a truly worrying question.

Once again you have stopped picking holes in the arguments and started alluding to the 'un-American' attitude of anybody who dares raise these issues. Your question is another example of the slow form of socialisation that occurs to convince the public at large that not following the official party line is unpatriotic.

With this question your are directly suggesting that these '9/11 Truthers' are working against the people of the United States. Where does the assumption that people who don't believe the official explanation of 9/11 want to suppress your basic freedoms come from? In the wake of this terrible event you have seen far more suppression of human rights by your own government than by the people who question them.

As for your example of gun control. Are you fucking serious? How are the two connected? Although I'd say that the events of the last week are enough to suggest that, I dunno, automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the general public or, oh lets see, the NRA fight against banning weapons on school property wasn't their greatest move. While you're at it why not claim that abortions rob America of good patriots, or that the death penalty is good old Western justice, or that they hate Bush because they won't accept Jesus as their personal saviour?

Dude. You're a tool.

Question #21. Why wasn't the conspiracy done at night so that it has a lesser chance of being exposed?

Less Chance of being seen?

Great question. I have no answer to that. Exactly how does one do a "conspiracy at night"?

Question #22. Why didn't the goverment just exclusively use the bombs (that allegedly brought down the towers) instead of involving the planes in the WTC attacks? Doesn't that just needlessly overcomplicate things and create a greater chance of being discovered as a government plot?

Yeah and what about that building that just fell down without being hit (WTC7)?

Again, another great question. Well done. You were having a real brain day there. What's more suspicious; two building essential to the world economy suddenly blow up for no reason and the government say it was terrorists. Or actual terrorists really attack a building and the government get to exploit world favour and do what they want.

Question #23. Why did the conspiracy arrangers crash a plane in the middle of nowhere instead of using it to kill even more people?

That would just look dumb.

I thnk we can all agree that the passengers of the Flight 93 really did bring that plane down before it hit its target.

Question #24. Why crash a plane into the pentagon? Doesn't just hamper the efforts toward the wars to come?

Why hit a strategic target with a laser-guided cruise missile?

Because that'd be like robbing every house on a street except yours. Want another cliche? You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.

Question #25. George W. Bush claims that the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So why wasn't the Statue of Liberty attacked to demonstrate this?

That's been done to death in the movies.

Firstly they don't hate us because of our freedoms. That's rhetocial nonsense that means nothing. They hate us because our freedoms are secured by oppressing, bullying and controlling the rest of the world and - above all else - them. It ain't hard to work out.

The Statue of Liberty is just a statue (given to you, lest we forget, by those cheese eating surrender monkeys the French) with only a couple of hundred people inside and would have little effect. The Twin Towers is vital to the economy of the Whole Western World and destroying them is an attack on our way of living - aggressive capitalism - and not just some half baked notion of freedom. This question demonstrates your absolute lack of understanding of this subject - the geopolitcial, historical, ethical and governmental influences are completely ignored in favour of rhetorical jingoism.

---------------------------------

I'm happy to argue these points. Truth be told I enjoy it. What worries me is that this list of questions received relatively mainstream media attention. Questioning the questioners is always a good idea, but this list is presented as a valid argument when in truth all it is is another attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't swallow the 'truth.' The questions are loaded, speculative and based on little or no evidence - infact they read a little like a list of charges that must be defended.

I'm not sure what happened that day. No-one is. I don't buy anything the Administration says, but I also find it hard to believe that they swapped planes, changed serial numbers and murdered citizens. I think that there are a staggering amount of questions that need to answered and these so called '9/11 Truthers' are the only people asking them. Publicity like this does not help the learned person achieve any form of understanding in this world, it just helps to undermine them.