3. Use of the Attacks to Pursue an unrelated War and Inappropriately Restrict Civil Liberties
As I said in the advanced knowledge section, the motive of many of the theories is thought to be the Bush administration's desire to have the American people rally around the administration and thus have a better ability to pursue its domestic and foreign agendas. 9/11 and the Patriot act had the effect of dampening any domestic opposition to the Bush administration for the better part of two years. Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 as admitted now by most Bush administration officials, was invaded largely on a lie by the administration that they were at least partly culpable for the 9/11 attacks. There is still a small percentage of the US Population that believes this. Even among those who don't believe this, there are many who view the invasion of Iraq as some sort of just retribution for 9/11 because there are Muslims in Iraq. This crazy idea is tantamount to bombing the Vatican if the IRA attacked the US.
It isn't necessary to believe in any of the other conspiracy theories to believe the Bush administration used 9/11 as the Nazis used the Reichstag fire in 1933. The Nazis used the Reichstag fire to stoke nationalist sentiments and silence their political opponents as unpatriotic and supporting Germany's enemies. Indeed, the parallels between the Patriot act after 9/11 and the German Ermächtigungsgesetz or Enabling act after the Reichstag fire, as well as the wars that eventually followed both are hard to ignore. These types of incidents are called False Flag attacks, described here in Wikipedia and are common throughout history. Wikipedia provides examples of over seven false flag attacks/operations in the 20th century alone, including one by the US and the British to overthrow the government of Iran in 1953.
False flag attacks are common because governments know that most people will not support a war of aggression, but will support their country and their country's leaders if their country is attacked. It is as Herman Goering stated in 1945 to US Intelligence officer Gustave Gilbert in this interview: We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
----------------------------------------
Getting back to 9/11, I said I would explain what I believe. The Patriot act was what started my disbelief of the official account of 9/11. I am a bit of an amateur World War II historian and the Patriot act immediately brought the 1933 German enabling act and the Reichstag fire to mind. Let's not forget that (assuming the official story for a moment) a criminal organization attacked a few buildings. They happened to do it with planes and kill many people, but that is what it was, a group of thugs who attacked a few buildings. Those who conspired with them should have been captured and brought to justice and that is the extent of it. You do not restrict the rights of 300 million people to do that. You do not attack a completely unrelated country. I believe #3 because as far as I am concerned it is obvious that the Bush administration misused the 9/11 attacks to pursue their domestic and foreign agenda. Once you accept that, you have accepted the idea that Bush and his administration are criminal and evil. Once you know that, it becomes easier to accept a deeper level of involvement in the attacks. I am leaning toward believing 1A above. Believing anything beyond that is difficult. Like the official 9/11 theory itself, the other theories like Thermite and DEWs have their own serious issues. That does not rule them out. People who doubt the official story of 9/11 should know that they have a lot of company. Many of us are not exactly sure where the problems are with the official account; we just know it doesn't "smell" right. There should be not one, but several large-scale independent investigations into the 9/11 attacks. Until that occurs, many Americans will have doubts about what really happened six years ago.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
