Talk:Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Broken Link 2 Terrorism and Poverty NPOV 3 Taliban claims of responsibility 4 Staged or Real Celebrations in Middle East 5 al Qaeda responsibility 6 the seventh paragraph 7 The Great "Terrorism" Debate 8 U.S. culpability 9 Haliburton made money from September 11th attacks 10 John Loftus 11 Slow Federal Responce 12 Some conspiracy theorists also suspect complicity in the attacks within the U.S. government itself 13 Recommend to AfD 14 Justin Raimondo: nice investigation 15 Government Responsibility 16 Iraq section now seems tilted and leading 17 9/11 from World independent group 18 Major revision to section "Al Qaeda" needed 19 Not Making Sense 20 Removed sentence 21 Theory of another Great Power being responsible

[edit] Broken Link

This link does not work: Millions of shares sold before disaster, The Times, 9/18/2001 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skeptical July 8, 2003 3:10 PM Chicago time

[edit] Terrorism and Poverty NPOV

Removed this bit:

However, facts don't back the ¨poverty spurs terrorism¨ thesis and, like hate crime perpetrators, terrorists do not necessarily have a personal background of poverty. Bin Laden is known to be a wealthy Saudi businessman, and his hijackers have come from the ruling elite rather than from the slums. As the terrorists never have raised agendas for enhanced business ethics in international policy nor done anything that could achieve them, perception has grown that the imperialism thesis belongs to the fog of war, and the hatred that embeds terrorism is more than a consequence of United States foreign policy.

(a) it is unattributed POV analysis

(b) it mischaracterizes the "poverty spurs terrorism" thesis anyway, which does not say "poor people are terrorists".

(c) Also, in fact, many of the hijackers came from middle class backgrounds, definitely not from ruling class backgrounds. No Saudi princes on the planes.

(d) It conflates the "imperialism" thesis with "poverty spurs terrorism" which are two different things. The latter was advanced by the likes of Colin Powell, who, rather than critiquing U.S. imperialism, conducts it. The former was advanced by leftist/anti-war types, and states that physical U.S. interventions and aid to repressive governments - e.g., support for Mubarak, the Saudi Royal Family, King Abdullah of Jordan, Israel, etc. - are what cause the anger that results in terrorism.

So, I've removed this passage until someone wants to do something better with it. Graft 15:11 27 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Taliban claims of responsibility

I don't seem to remember the Taliban claiming responsibility for the attacks. When-all did this happen, exactly? Is there some documentation for this claim? Graft

[edit] Staged or Real Celebrations in Middle East

The word "produced" is technically correct. However, the broad interpretation associated with its application, in this context, may warrant reconsideration of its use. There may be another word which could lend greater meaning to the author's intention when offered in conjunction with the following addendum:

"Perhaps it should be noted that the "filmed reports of celebrations on the West Bank" later was said to have been produced. A reporter from Der Stern (I think) even found and interviewed the woman appearing on the film sequence. // Liftarn 13:50 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)"

If I am fortunate to have properly interpreted the author's intent, I would ask the following word be considered in place of "produced"... fabricated.

The key word "produce" was used in conjunction with so-called news reports of a celebration(s). It may be fair to conjecture, the author meant to convey the idea a "fabrication" was at play by the media.

The differentiation may be significant in as much as the reader is left to believe the word "produce" properly describes the situation. In my view, this may be grossly inadequate if one wishes to properly depict the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the news of the celebration was obtained and subsequently reported. The natural consequence is a distortion of the public's understanding.

The magnitude of a deficiency such as this may be better understood, possibly, with an unrelated yet simple analogy. If a radio news report indicated all the plants in the forest were lost to fire, one might deduce that the trees may have been spared, somehow. Why? Because most folks are not necessarily familiar with the concept of sets and subsets.

For example, "every tree is a plant, but not every plant happens to be a tree." Is this concept universally understood? Perhaps not. Or, let's look at the word 'house." That "house" may or may not be your "home," even though you probably live in a "house" and not a "hut" (which might be someone else's "home"). We see how house and home may or may not mean the same thing in all circumstances.

Consequently, when we read or hear that "filmed reports of celebrations on the West Bank" later was said to have been << produced >>, while it is technically correct, the language used does not permit the public to fully comprehend the act committed by the news media and the possible ethical questions which should be raised as a result. Finally, every newscast is almost always "produced" by someone or some corporate entity. This word is often used, in a positive sense, in the television and radio news industry. Therefore, to employ the use of the word "produce," in this framework, is to run the risk of creating at the very least, a meaningless image.

When specificity is lacking, competent communication suffers, resulting in misunderstanding (the single, most important, cause of the world's problems). I am hopeful I have competently communicated my concern for the need to modify the usage of a single word. Best regards!

What about "staged"? basicly they handed out sweets (or rather a type of cookies called "kanafe") and filmed a coupe of persons who had no idea what was going on. It's not that thard to get kids to jump up and down in front of a camera. A reporter from Der Stern managed to track down the woman in the film and interviewed her. She claimed she had no idea what the "celebration" was about. At http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm a version of this is mentioned, but the footage was actually done by palestinian cameramens. // Liftarn 15:14 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] al Qaeda responsibility

I'm baffled by the claim that Al-Qaeda is not explicitly linked to the attacks. Did no one watch the videos in which Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith claimed responsibility and explicitly promised that more such attacks were in the works? --Delirium 03:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

ahem, how good is you arabic ? it has been widely reported, that multiple interviews with UBL were mistranslated, or misinterpreted, as these people generally tend to speak in a very different way, we do. I am sorry, but i have to point out, that these statements ("we did 9-11") are not widely accepted. it is sure that he praised the attacks, but to my knowledge he never clearly claimed to be responsible.--217.224.142.247 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, OBL explicitly acknowledged responsibility for the attacks in his "election speech" at the end of October 2004. Second, there was never any uncertainty as to who was behind the attacks among terrorism experts and scholars at the time, nor among anyone who was really paying attention to international terrorism at the time. Confusion and uncertainty about the specific plot, for sure, but al Qaeda linked terrorists had tried in 1993 to bring down the WTC, it was well known that OBL had declared war on America, and al Qaeda's MO was well known by this point as well. And as early as 12/2001 OBL praised the attacks in terms that made it clear that he considered himself an inspiration to the hijackers. --csloat 03:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"OBL praised the attacks in terms that made it clear that he considered himself an inspiration to the hijackers." - this is still no proof that OBL was behind this attack, nor that Al Quaeda was behind it. It's not even proof that OBL was 'an inspiration to the hijackers'! (It's just an assumption of a guy) --24 Apr 2005

You've got to be joking. Do you really think someone else was behind the attacks? Has somebody else taken credit for them in stronger terms than OBL? --csloat 19:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go to the FBI website and look at the report on Osama Bin Laden it never once mentions him being part of september 11. www.fbi.gov Jan 16, 2007

[edit] the seventh paragraph

beginning "Worldwide, a significant minority see the attack as an outcome of past United States involvement in the Middle East and surrounding area..."

I hold this viewpoint. Otherwise, you'd be saying the attacks were made at random, that there was no cause. This is not saying "you got what you deserved" or anything of the sort. It's a logical analysis of history. Many on the American left have made these conclusions, but no one says that the attacks were justified or that they were not evil. I don't want to delete the paragraph but I think it should be revised for NPOV. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important to ask for proof in all cases, regardless of what may appear to have happened.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.112.85 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] The Great "Terrorism" Debate

There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. culpability

link added to the book Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert). I mean no disrespect for any of the victims. I feel wiki should mention a book exploring such possibility, as it is being considered by a non-negligible amount of citizens. It's not like saying 911 never happened: it's saying the conspirators for the killing may be in unexpected places. /Mick2 23:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think information from here shuold be noted on this page about the possibility of US government involvement in these attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.21.72 (talk • contribs) .

It is there, on the right at the bottom of the 9/11 template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haliburton made money from September 11th attacks

Hi Tom,

could you tell me why you summarily deleted the facts that I posted, please?

Thanks,

yours,

1liberator1liberator 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, it is important to note that Haliburton stock rose from $9 in January 2002 to $67 in March, 2006. What is more, the average price of gas in the U.S. increased from $1.25/gallon in 2002 to $2.85/gallon in 2006. At the same time, the price of 1 Killowat of electric energy, due to the increase in cost of the oil used to produce it, increased from $0.04 in 2002 to $0.10 in 2006."

I deleted this because it is unsupported by citation. Who says it's important to note that? Who says it's even relevent? Unless someone notable is making the charge (presumably that Bush did it to boost Haliburton's stock price), and unless we say who is making the charge, it is just innuendo. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom:

I think I added a citation, but maybe we missed it. Let me post it again. I think it is important to note the facts, i.e. Americans are paying exorbitant prices for energy while Haliburton is making money out of the deal.

Thanks, 1liberator 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the stock price went up. What we need a cite for is who says 9/11 was engineered to cause that. Is this what Ruppert says? If so, we need to make clear that this is part of his theory. I'm going to copy my remarks to Talk:Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks so others can follow the discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom:

thanks for the approach. I am usually summarily deleted when people disagree. I am glad that you did not forget what America's based on - constructive dialogue. If you want, please rephrase the quote to make clear that's part of Ruppert's theory. Or, if you want, we can draft a joint statement that reflects that Ruppert makes this claim in the book, or whatever you propose. Once again, thank you, 1liberator 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes. Edit it yourself if you see the need, and hopefully we'll zero in on a version we both like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, looks great, hope everyone else likes it. 1liberator 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Loftus

I am not sure whether this should be mentioned here or under "conspiracy theories" or trash-bin, but I thought I would ask here. In http://menewsie.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=655 he claims among other things, that the Muslim Brotherhood was trained, by BI and CIA. The Muslim Brotherhood has been an inspiration to the development of other organisations, like e q Al'Qaida. This is one way one might blame the US for what happened, even if it is a stretch. Does anyone have a clue as to the reliability of John Loftus?DanielDemaret 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow Federal Responce

Looking at the timeline, it appears that both air traffic controllers and NORAD could have reacted quicker and coordinated better. From 8:19 to 8:38 Boston AT takes 19 minutes to tell NORAD it *may* have a potential hijack. Dispite the fact that the plane remained on primary radar (but not secondary as its transponder was turned off) ATC did not, for whatever reason, relay position or heading information to the F15s launched to intercept it. The hijacking of flight 175 is apparently not even noticed dispite the fact is wondering off course as much as flight 11. Though the US 'open sky' policy means planes can make minor changes in speed, heading or altitude without ATC permission, aircraft that go off course by hundreds of miles should draw active attention for basic safety reasons.

You can call this lack of investment, poor training, or simple stupidity, but the fact is US Federal authorities appear to have screwed up by the numbers, and did not done all they could have to prevent the attack from being as sucessful as it was. It is not a conspiracy theory to point out more could have been done before (or during) the event - nor to point out the US was repeatedly advised of its poor aircraft security arrangements by other nations. Even months after 9/11 Flight International magazine was drawing attention to lack of checks on check-in baggage and pure cargo flights.

I have not found this information addressed on any wikipedia 9/11 page. Should it not be addressed here, not as responsability for causing it, but as responsability for letting it happen? ANTIcarrot 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It definitely sounds like some great research and worth a section in the US responsibility section any article you can point to? Mrdthree 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what issue the Flight International article was from, and the only other mention was a British MP pointing out some of this, which did not go down well. Unfortunately when it comes to 911, the American press has been blinded by the event to the point of stupidity. They should have been pointing exactly that kind of thing out within a week, if not a month. They refuse to even to this day, which makes it difficult when you try and cite sources. Most of the above is based upon the official wiki timeline, and varrious federal rule about thow things are supposed to work, again which aren't easy to find ot cite. If I did put it up without such sources, it would no doubt be accused of being 'orrigonal thinking' and 'anti-american' in some way and taken down.ANTIcarrot 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some conspiracy theorists also suspect complicity in the attacks within the U.S. government itself

This flatly states that in order to merely "suspect" the responsibility of persons in the US government one must be a conspiracy theorist. Literally that may be true but the phrase is pejorative in English-speaking countries and separate in meaning from "one who supports the idea of an internal conspiracy". Simply removing it leaves it unbiased.

Good catch. I fixed it. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend to AfD

relevant portions should be reintegrated to Osama Bin Laden page, Al Qaeda page, September 11 Terrorist Attacks or 9/11 COnspiracy theories. Most of this article is original research. I am intersted in any arguments to the contrary. Is this article a catalogue of investigations or a catalogue of personal research by wikipedians? Mrdthree 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Raimondo: nice investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Raimondo

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html

Lenni Brenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenni_brenner

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

rgds

[edit] Government Responsibility

At a minimum governments failed to prevent a crime, which is negligence of duty. This puts a share of responsibility on the government. Mrdthree 02:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq section now seems tilted and leading

The Iraq section now seems to include extensive talk tilted toward links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which are now largely discredited. NPOV does not mean presenting both sides of an argument equally -- it means giving weight to the facts that have the most reliable sources (and sides that cannot be sourced are excluded--probably not pertinent here). Giving so much weight to Woolsey and the "crackpot" (not my words) seems to work against this. Further, the section now leads a reader to believe that al-Qaeda was culpible for the 1993 WTC bombing -- this is not factual -- an Egyptian Islamic organization was found to be responsible for that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I 100% agree. It is hard to believe that some people are still pedeling this rubbish when even Cheney himself has conceded that there was no link. I am currently thinking about how to edit the section in question. WikiTony 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 from World independent group

World independent group news, investigation about 9/11[1]

I wanted to criticise the WING page about selling magic books but then I realized there may be guilt of magical thinking on all sides.Mrdthree 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific about this. 68.32.201.254 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for they sell magic books. They sell magic books (their main advertiser was magic books). As for magical thinking on all sides, it was probably a refernce to a discussion where teh possibility of government negligence was dismissed as conspiracy theory. Mrdthree 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Magic is a book company? If so than I am satisfied. 68.32.201.254 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

magic books MAGICK BOOKS MAAGIC BOOOKS Mrdthree 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this some kind of slander thing going on here or are you just trying to be funny? Sure they probably dabble in selling stuff on the paranormal, mainly stuff about Cayce and Douglas Kenyon, and they are in alliance with Jim Marrs (who believes similar to David Icke that the big conspiracies are the remnant of an alien invasion some fourto three thousand years ago). But I have listened to them for a year, and this is allready after five years of looking at this stuff, starting with Dr. Leonard Horrowitz and his shocking accusations towards the treatment industry and on through David Icke, Rappoport, then Jones and Rense until finally stumbling upon these two, and I must say, they are amongst the truest, most honest, not to mention sanest I have seen in this whole subject (Jon Rappoport is still good also since he has a comprehensive view of human nature, like them, and they advertise a book of his). The point, I think their comprehensive knowlege, their way of dealing with incomming knowlege (i.e., their reasoning abilities), and their courage for even mentioning some of this stuff in their plainly-spoken manner (such as Zionism, which I believe more and more people are really starting to question especially since Lebenon) makes them amongst the more reliable representatives of the conspiracy sub-culture, although they are so descerning and concise in their explanations that they end up sounding much like mainstream reporters, perhapse a little fanatical like some college kids hosting a political show. 68.32.201.254 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision to section "Al Qaeda" needed

The "Al Qaeda" section needs to be tightened up for the following reasons:

(1) Excessive repetition of concepts and sentences, for example, these three sentences seem to describe identical concepts:

"bin Laden has repeatedly broadcast a common list of grievances which he cites as the reason for his declaration of war against the U.S." "In many interviews with bin Laden, he lists specific foreign policies of the U.S. as the reasons for al-Qaida attacks against Americans and the U.S. government." "For many years bin Laden stated motives for attacking U.S. interests."

(2) Inconsistent chronological ordering of facts/allegations. Sometimes the facts/allegations appear in the order in which they were revealed or presented to the public, other times they appear in the order in which they (allegedly) occurred. I suggest that the facts/allegations always be presented in the order in which they (allegedly) occured, accompanied by appropriate citations as to when they were discovered.

In the spirit of "Be bold", I'm going to start making the edits now. Mastoo 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What does al qaedo have to do with identifying hijackers; why did you erase the section? Ultimately the criminals are responsible for the crime.Mrdthree 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

All that info is verbatim in Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which was an article that existed before I made the edits and said pretty much the same thing, so I moved the eyewitness accounts from this page to that page to supplement what was already there. That is why I have numerous "See also"'s that point to that article.

Mastoo 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Making Sense

How does the fact that Jews died in the WTC cancle out the fact that an Israeli faction did it to spur the USA into destroying Israel's Islamic enemies? Also remember some of the works of Lenni Brenner on how Conservative Zionists handled the Holocaust. Zionism considers the typical Jew to be part of the larger collective, the Jewish Nation, and thus collateral in the larger goal of Greater Israel, and it may even present their deaths as heroic in it's own strange way (I doubt any of the victems, whether they be Jews or Christian Zionists, would have considered it in that way, nor do I believe they should). 68.32.201.254 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

Under the Israel section I removed the sentence, "This theory has been proven to be false" due to the fact that the source (snopes) gave no actual proof, but rather a rant.

--KonigArtus 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of another Great Power being responsible

If September 11th was indeed a conspiracy is there the possibility that another great power could have carried out the operation and double framed it to make it look at first like an Islamic terrorist group had carried out the attack but knew America's conspiracy culture surrounding major events would mean soon people would start to question the US government particularly if clues purposefully pointing towards the US government were left behind by whoever did it. If so which great power and why? Obviously one easy indicator of this is who benefitted most from September 11th? A number of reasons point away from the US because simply if the US had gone to such a great amount of time, planning, and effort to attempt to pull off what would be the greatest illusion the world has ever seen why then has the response to the attacks been such a mess? Surely if they were going to spend such a immense amount of time, planning, and effort to really pull off the greatest illusion ever then they would have spent just as much time, planning, and effort on preparing their response in the aftermath.

In reality after the attacks the US quickly went in Afghanistan with much support from around the world, which seems to go to plan if it had been planned by the US, rather quickly there after everything does not. Momentum from the attacks started to be lost pretty quickly and the US had only managed to do Afghanistan. Iraq did not come until 2003 which was noticeably too late really as momentum from the attacks had been lost rapidly especially with US allies and so Iraq only just happened with much opposition coming from many parts of the rest of the world. It is obvious that Iraq had been left too late, too late if the US government really had planned September 11th. The fact many opposed the invasion of Iraq, both from many countries and the media meant a strong resistance movement was mounted in Iraq, which stared causing many problems from the US and as the opposition to the invasion carried on particularly in the media Afghanistan started to mount a strong resistance too, which with both countries strongly resisting caused massive problems for the US on the ground, at home, and internationally, all of which makes the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan seem obvious that they weren't planned by the US government or planned extremely poorly which would seem out of character if these invasions were supposed to have been planned for so long and so perfectly like September 11th is supposed to have. The question why would the US carry out such attacks against itself which caused major damage to New York, caused New York to fall behind London as the largest financial centre, and harmed US stock markets and hindered GDP growth all just to invade 2 relatively small Middle Eastern countries? Some say invading Iraq was for oil but why invade Afghanistan first and waste the momentum and support from 9/11 by the time Iraq was invaded in 2003. Considering how out of favour Afghanistan and particularly Iraq were in the eyes of the world would the US really have needed to cause such damage upon itself with the immense risk the governemnt would be taking of being found out when the situation regarding both countries meant military action against either was feasible or regime change by other methods as has been used many times before. Also one would have though Iran would have been invaded too to make September 11th worth while and especially if September 11th was carried out to secure oil but no such invasion has taken place nor looks likely to now. If anything Iran would have been expected to have been invaded first after 9/11 exploiting the momentum and support after the attacks and due to it having both large amounts of oil and gas and it being the strongest of the 3 plus the advantage of taking Iran by supprise rather than leaving it for years or decades to built up its military and acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is perhaps the only one where September 11th might have had to have been carried out to justify an invasion but no such invasion ever took place or atleast in the name of September 11th. You would have though Iran would have been inaved first after 9/11 while the momentum of the attacks was still high enough to take such a target with the US arguing that the perpetrators came from Iran. In relality the invasion of Iraq only strengthened Iran and gave them some international support to acquire nuclear technologies and has even made Iran appear to many as a freedom fighter against the US rather than the other way around.

Today the US thanks to September 11th and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually only weakened the US in many ways with harm caused to the US and New York economies, loss in American international standing particularly at the UN, losses of previously allied countries, a very weakened NATO, severe decline in US-EU relations, severe decline in relations with previously allied Middle Eastern countries, rampant anti-Americanism across the globe, strengthened radical islam, strengened socialism aimed against the US, strengethened green movement aimed against the US, and a severely weakened Republican party, rampant accusations that the US carried out September 11th. All of these seem to be the opposite effects from what the US government would have wanted from September 11th. This points clearly away from the US government being responsible and considering how bad the effects from 9/11 have got it would seem 9/11 may have been carried out by another entity wishing these effects to happen. If we take 7/7 in the UK no real negative effects seem to have happened which you would have expected then if such effects happened to the US but instead only served to prove to the UK's population that the War on Terror was their problem too. The UK's economic growth dipped slightly after the attacks but quickly rose back to the high levels experienced since 2001. London also didn't suffer any financial damage as skyscrapers continue to be built at their fastest ever rate plus London has now also overtaken New York as the world's largest financial centre.

It has been said that September 11th was the US government's Reichstag fire or Manchurian incident which both enabled the governments of Germany and Japan to fight on their enemies but as well known that both false flag opperations did indeed prove successful at first they ultimately lead both countries to their demise and the US government would have been well aware of this. As would other great powers. Perhaps another great power realised the potential of this that by carrying out such an opperation against the US, which would make the US act in an aggressive manner, and would eventually seem to be a false flag opperation, which would lead to its demise. This may have been the chosen route to bring the demise of the US without actually having to fight it and without having to incur the damage expected in return. Perhaps a perpetrator wanted to make the US unknowingly dance to its tune by making the US carry out activities it wanted to do itself but either couldn't do itself or needed US help. Perhaps the US has been dancing to this their tune to some degree for a long while now without even knowing it and now they may have decided to really start using the US as an unaware puppet or decided the usefulness of the US is coming to its end and bring about its demise or a combination of the both.

The question of Israel being the perpetrator seemed perhaps quite likely soon after 9/11 if it were really a conspiracy but later seemed not to be the case as it would have been thought that Israel would have taken advantage of an angry US in the Middle East in that Israel would have attacked Syria or invaded Syria or that it would have wanted to have been part of the coalition with the US against Iraq but instead it didn't. Infact Israel has been very non interfering in what the US has done in the Middle East and totally missed any opportunity from this to strengthen its position. In fact 9/11 and US policy in the Middle East has been bad for Israel as it encouraged its enemies to grow stronger and more prevalent. The war with Hezbollah which Israel lost proved post 9/11 weakened Israel as US actions since 9/11 encouraged the growth and prevalence of enemies of Israel. Also post 9/11 has seen Israel come under more pressure to leave occupied territories which it did with the Gaza Strip and seems to gradually having to with the West Bank and has made the posibility of a Palestinian state comprised of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank seem more likely than ever. It could be fair to say September 11th's aftermath has cost Israel quite a lot. Although which great power might want to harm Israel or perhaps actually the Jewish people may go into quite some depth.

The conspiracy surrounding the September 11th attacks rely quite heavily on suspicious evidence regarding many factors in relation to the events. It would seem considering the seemingly quite large amount of suspicious evidence brought to light and that suggested by many would seem as though someone may have gone to great lengths and perfectly pulled of a double framing. America's quite often suspicion regarding major events lead to conspiracy theories being brought up may have lead to a successful operation to double frame the US governemnt by making it look as though Islamic terrorists had carried out the attacks at first but knowing the likelyhood of conspiracy theories popping up especially when purposefully incriminating evidence against the US governemnt was found all made sure that the operation was a complete success with no chance of the real perpetrators being found because the expected conspiracy theories were concentrating against the US government as planned.

The reason why another great power may be guilty is that pretty much every other major false flag event in history has been conducted by a great power of the time seeking to create events to get one over on rival. However in history false flag operations were conducted by a great power to give an excuse for or to initiate some form of action against a usually well known rival, which is where people may be going wrong in using the traditional reasons for a false flag operation and actaully it may have been conducted by someone who calls themself an ally but carried out the operations to get what they want and had to double frame the operation because they knew conspiracy theories would emerge.

I don't think that if the US government had carried out 9/11 that they would have left such evidence behind because they would have been well aware of what was at risk if they were found out and they would have been expecting conspiracy theories to arise due to the amount surrounding the JFK assassination and the Moon landings. This would point to that whoever did do it worked closely with those framed and influenced them to do things which would later be used as evidence against them. They realised the massively complexed way of double framing and breaking from traditional false flag operations meant the chances of them being found out were extremely low. They also had to make sure those they were influencing didn't grow suspicious but this was solved by having a long history of closely working with them and influencing them so no suspicious change would be detected and also being seen as friendly. You could say a Trojan horse.

But to eliminate suspects think motives, capabilities to carry out such activities and operations, and those who seem to have benefitted most afterwards (those who seem to have had a good time due to 9/11 and what has happened after). In regards to importance the 3 work backwards. Look for signs of establishing of reestablishing power. The media would also seem to do the perpetrator's bidding so media strength is also a major sign.