What are the real reasons behind the Nine Eleven bombings, and why wont our govt tell us?

Question

I never suggested a conspiracy, and those who make the assumption for or against all miss the point.

Patrick Buchanon and Ron Paul both agree that the US financed and trained Al Qaida and the Taliban, which began with Jimmy Carter and continued up thru the first year or so of Bill Clintons Administration. Ronald Reagan -- who designated catsup a vegetable -- invited the Taliban to the White House and called them "genuine freedom fighters". Bush 41 had financial and political ties to the Bin Laden family up thru September 11, and his son allowed them to be smuggled out of America after the terrorist bombing.

These facts are documented by numerous sources from the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal to biographers and investigative journalists. No reporter can credibly repudiate any of this, but they have ignored it to propagandize the "War on Terrorism" out of context, and it can be used to cause crises not only within Muslim countries but within the US as well.

Answer 1

Bin Laden did it, he says he did it, and he told you why he did it. Educate yourself and stop flapping around in the wind of gasbag conspiracies.

Answer 2

Our government has told us the truth, we have a hateful group of radicals terrorizing the world.  That's why we began the War on Global Terror.

Answer 3

if the government isnt saying anything, why would anyone on yahoo know?

Answer 4

if the government told us the real reason that would mean they would have to tell the truth and that is obviously against all of their policies for dealing with the public. but im pretty sure it was because they hate the united states.... not saying i do or anything but.... we are kind of at war with them sadly

Answer 5

cause the government did it so why would they tell u...

Answer 6

If they start telling us things, then they wouldn't be the government anymore.

Answer 7

Nine Eleven bombings? What bombings? That's something new to me.

Answer 8

The 'real' reason depends on who you want to believe.  Osama Bin Laden issued a tape in which he said it was about (1) American troops in Saudi Arabia (guarding the holy shrines of Islam) and (2) American support of Israel in mistreating the Palestinians.  It's interesting to note that Bush pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

But our government doesn't want to admit that 9/11 was 'blowback', unintended consequences of our own misdeeds and meddling in the affairs of nearly every country in the Middle East. Because the message is implicit that these things were wrong and we shouldn't do them.  The government would rather that we believe that Al Quaeda is jealous of our freedom and prosperity, our peacefulness and generosity--in other words they hate us because of our VIRTUES.

Answer 9

I love how some people are more likely to believe a crazy elaborate story then the simple truth.

Answer 10

We already know the truth.  It was a terrorist attack.  You just don't want to accept it.

Conspiracy theories are widely regarded as characteristic of irrational modes of thinking. The very term ‘conspiracy theory’ is usually reserved for irrational explanations meeting the above criteria. For conspiracies do happen. Criminal conspiracies are proved every day in courts. Political conspiracies are discovered from time to time. If we can rationally explain a bank robbery as being the consequence of a conspiracy, why not a war? Or the world economic system? What distinguishes a conspiracy theory (irrational, by definition) from a sane opinion that a particular group of people worked in secret to bring about certain observed events for their own immoral purposes?

Here, the irrefutability of conspiracy theories is usually cited: to a conspiracy theorist, everything that happens, or could possibly happen, constitutes evidence for the conspiracy. If the alleged conspirators seem to benefit, then that is evidence against them. If they do not, then that is just evidence that the media and/or other conspirators are concealing the facts, or that something much more valuable is secretly at stake.

But there is more to it than irrefutability. There is more to it even than the tendency to invent (rather than merely reinterpret) evidence to conform to the conspiracy theory. For it is no coincidence that every (irrational) conspiracy theory is in fact false. Underlying their invalid arguments and mishandling of evidence in judging explanations, there is a pathological mistake in the conspiracy theorists’ conception of what constitutes an explanation in the first place.

It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that there is no immediate way of telling. Since the conspiracy depends on the conspirators behaving, in public, exactly as if they were dupes, it must be true that any duped politicians would be behaving in public exactly as if they were conspirators: arguing for the policy, voting for it, trying to discredit its opponents, cutting deals to promote it and so on.

You can see where this is going, can't you? How high are the dupes allowed to rise? For all we know, even some of the highest-ranking Neo-Cons are dupes. Even some members of the Cabinet might be outside the Conspiracy and genuinely be motivated by the arguments and objectives they advance in public.

Could the President himself be a dupe? If he was lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction then he was a Conspirator, and of course nothing could ever prove that he wasn't. But there again, there is no evidence that he was lying.

The fact is, all supporters of the Administration's policy could be ‘dupes’ – or rather, honest holders of the opinions they purport to hold – and still behave exactly as we see them behave. In other words, if there were no conspiracy there at all, we'd never know.

Well, obviously.

And therefore, the conspiracy theory explains exactly nothing. Yet it appends layers of weirdness and complexity to the commonsense picture of the world. There is an unlimited supply of such (non‑)explanations, all postulating invisible complexity and all contradicting each other. Even if one of them were true, it would be vanishingly unlikely that anyone would happen to hit on it by a method that was impervious to evidence.

That is one reason why, in practice, conspiracy theories are always false.

This is the choice which conspiracy theorists make differently and irrationally. They do care about some invisible events: the relatively small number that they love to think about, such as President Bush and his inner circle discussing their evil plan to seize the Iraqi oil fields. But they don't care enough to follow through the implications for the host of other invisible events that would also have to be happening if those were – such as how the conspiracy would recruit its members and how it would agree upon a new plan, and what exactly the conspirators’ reward is and how it gets to them. We shall say more about this in the next instalment, but in general terms: conspiracy theorists chronically fail to form a serious model of what reality would be like if their theory of it were true. They paint on a large canvas with only a tiny area of detail, always preferring the security of familiar patterns of thought that are guaranteed to provide the semblance of an explanation, to the uncertainty and difficulty of trying to understand what the facts really are.

But the believers in such theories just don't care. We have remarked that one characteristic of conspiracy theories is that their holders apply them very selectively to explain away some aspects of the world that they do not like. They are uninterested in any wider consequences that their theory would have if it were true. In other words, they fail to take their own theory seriously as an account of what is happening in the world.

It is therefore no accident that conspiracy-theoretic ways of thinking are always associated with collectivist fantasies of one sort or another. For Marxists, the ‘ruling class’ has many of the attributes of a person – a devious, dangerous person capable of having inherent ‘interests’ and secret motives and taking coherent actions to further them. Likewise, n***s and other antisemites conceive of The Jews (or often, tellingly, ‘The Jew’) as being such an entity, while for many Libertarians The State plays this role. If the conspiracy theorists can manage to think entirely in terms of this monstrous Person and its evil agenda, then they never have to think about the issues which make all conspiracy theories ludicrously flawed when taken seriously – issues such as how the conspirators are supposed to communicate, agree upon their evil plans, deal with dissenters, launder the funds needed to pay the assassins, groom a new generation to take over in due course, fool and control the dupes, distribute the spoils and so on, all while plausibly pretending that all their overt actions have some entirely different purpose.

Some ideologies have become notorious for the conspiracy theories that they contain. So when we find people who earnestly believe the light bulb myth, we may well enquire whether they are (say) socialists, and if so, we may guess that this explains their gullibility in regard to the economics of electrical technology. Given our analysis here, though, it is possible that the true explanation goes in the other direction. It may be that people are attracted to collectivist ideologies (including Libertarian versions of statism) because they want to believe a conspiracy theory and because the collectivist ideology allows them to disregard its flaws, rather than vice versa.

The Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was notorious for his all-encompassing paranoia. And yet, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out in his novel The First Circle, even Stalin was not entirely lacking in the capacity to trust:

    Distrust of people was the dominating characteristic of Joseph Djugashvili [Stalin]; it was his only philosophy of life. He had not trusted his own mother; neither had he trusted God, before whom as a young man he had bowed down in His temple. He had not trusted his fellow Party members, especially those with the gift of eloquence. He had not trusted his comrades in exile. He did not trust the peasants to sow their grain or harvest their wheat unless he forced them to do it and watched over them. He did not trust the workers to work unless he laid down their production targets. He did not trust the intellectuals to help the cause rather than to harm it. He did not trust the soldiers and the generals to fight without penal battalions and field security squads. He had never trusted his relatives, his wives or his mistresses. He had not even trusted his children. And how right he had been!

    In all his long, suspicion-ridden life he had only trusted one man. That man had shown the whole world that he knew his own mind, knew whom it was expedient to like and whom to hate; and he had always known when to turn round and offer the hand of friendship to those who had been his enemies.

    This man, whom Stalin had trusted, was Adolf Hitler.

And so, when Hitler suddenly invaded the Soviet Union, betraying Stalin's trust and their non-aggression treaty (including all the nasty little secret clauses under which they had plotted jointly to enslave Eastern Europe), Stalin

    blindly and fanatically refused to believe Hitler was going to attack and even after the n**i assault began still refused to believe that Hitler had ordered the offensive. [Harrison E. Salisbury, emphases in original.]

Stalin also refused to believe his own spies, such as the astonishing Richard Sorge, who had sent specific and timely warnings of Hitler's plans, complete with smoking-gun evidence in the form of photographs of diplomatic telegrams.

Stalin nevertheless preferred to believe Hitler.

Stalin's island of gullibility in his ocean of paranoia is not exceptional – in fact, it is the rule. For instance, conspiracy theorists today prefer to believe that the likes of Saddam and Osama and Arafat tell the truth while Blair and Bush and Sharon lie. For, despite Solzhenitsyn's understandable mockery, what Stalin trusted uncritically was not Hitler, it was his own explanation (or rather, his own conspiracy-theoretic non-explanation) of what makes the world tick. Hitler was a natural beneficiary though, because he shared the same explanation. And it was Stalin's blind faith in this false world view, his inability to modify it in response to new information, that betrayed him. That is why it is not really very surprising that a person for whose “only philosophy of life” was distrust, came to lay himself wide open to the biggest betrayal of all time.

Paranoids, cynics and c

Answer 11

The real Reason? The real reason is that the followers of the most hate-filled ideology ever created by man have been killing in the name of their God for over 1000 years.Nothing new there.The weapons have gotten better,their reasons have changed from time to time,and their target has changed occasionally. But all they know is hatred,it's all they've ever known. They have it in their head that their hatred gives them some sort of power to change the world to suit them,they're wrong but the only thing that will convince them of that is their end. Hopefully we will give them that soon,so that the world can finally be rid of this scourge.

YTP

Answer 12

Why are people so obsessed with these conspiracies? It was a terrorist attack. Why can't you just accept that?

Answer 13

I have the most absolute best movie if you are interested in that stuff.

Go to www.zeitgeistmovie.com

The first 10 minutes is just an intro so just stick it out. Then its a 3 part movie. First part on How the Bible was plagiarized, second part on how the government plotted 911 and the final part on how International Bankers control your government and everything is for profit.

It will really open your eyes.

Answer 14

You know what you've already been told by the government? THAT'S the truth!

Answer 15

Our own government was behind the bombings.  It was a scare tactic to get us to agree or get behind Bushes plan to invade Iraq.  Google Alex Jones and he explains everything

Answer 16

The real reason is the simplest answer, and they already told us, in case you weren't listening or didn't correctly interpret the simple reasons they gave us as what they really were.  It stems from jealousy and anger from a society that does not have close to what we have.  These "real reasons" you want are just conspiracy THEORIES you have that stem from your anger from the situation (and that anger is understandable).  We don't have foreign invaders running around on our soil, massing in our streets and shooting our children.  I'm not completely happy with every decision our government has made, but can't you just respect that we're still very safe over here?

Answer 17

it was an inside job, the evidence is overwhelming

Answer 18

why are you so insistent on not believing the reasons our government gave?  the perpetrators of the bombings have made it clear, for decades.  i honestly don't understand people who will not believe anything coming from our government.  i'm not saying our government is perfect, you will never have that in an organization of that size.  when our citizens freely travel in and out, and foreigners freely travel in and out, with our great record of helping others, with a clear record of trying to improve ourselves, what do you see so horrible?  after world war 1 we could have confiscated half the world, after world war 2 we could have done the same, we could have wiped vietnam, korea, iran, iraq off the map in 1 day and taken all they had, no more oil crisis.  why haven't we?  because like it or not we are the good guys, we don't do those things.  hate to be cliche, but maybe if you don't love it , don't trust it, you should leave

Answer 19

Anti-Authoritarian reasons. Anti-Globalization. Anti-Greed.

Anti-Globalization. Survivalist.  Also monetary. Poverty.

Alternate currencies made by citizens remove Authoritarianism and enable exchange between trades people and Corp types with more control for each.

Answer 20

I believe that they won't tell us because the US government had something to do with these bombings if you don't believe me search "loose change" on youtube it is a Canadian news reporter.

Answer 21

i doubt our government has told us the truth, but I'm pretty sure it was just a terrorist attack by suicide bombers.

Answer 22

The government HAS told us, and Bin Laden confirmed it.  Why do you think there is some conspiracy here?

Answer 23

the real reason is that terrorist attack us for allah. there is no reason to invade iraq when the terrorist were in saudi and pakistan.bush is just a really stupid person he cant help it.

Answer 24

I think our government let it happen so we had an excuse to go to war.  That's where we get our oil, and our government wants control of it.  It's all about greed.  George Bush has oil running through his veins...so does McCain.  VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!

Answer 25

The only reason there is conspiracy theory's is because World Trade Center Building No.7 fell in a demolition fashion without being hit by a plane and the reports won't address it. If you have things to hide, usually you won't address them.

Answer 26

Well, they won't tell you because that might incite hatred toward Muslims and we certainly don't want to upset them do we?