September 11 Was a Hoax

Just for clarification, I'm assuming you mean an attack staged by the U.S. govt? I don't necessarily believe that it was, but I have some doubts about it's validity so I will take this debate. NOTE: I will be using http://www.911truth.org... to supply most of my evidence instead of gathering myself because I am short on time. Many people doubt the validity of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They believe them to have been staged by officials high up in the chain of command in the Bush administration. I intend to try to prove to you that there is very good reason to doubt what you were told by the media about these attacks and bring forward proof that you may never have heard that will sway your decision. Please keep an open mind. My first Contention: Officials knew of an impending attack and did nothing: According to 911truth.org a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators. b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th. c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th It would seem that many U.S. officials had advanced warning of an attack being planned on 9/11 and yet did nothing. Not only that but the 9/11 truthers also bring forward evidence that there may have been help from high ranking U.S. officials in the Bush administration. Which leads us to my second Contention. Contention 2: Heavy evidence suggests it may be staged. Terrorists are trained professionals who leave behind them as little evidence as possible so why according to 9/11 truth.com was there so much "miraculous" evidence left behind. a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11. Let's take the passport for instance. If a plane brought down two towers as big as the twin towers, In taking down the towers and burning the metal that supports the tower and a major portion of the plane how would there be a passport found if it wasn't planted there? This evidence suggests that someone wanted us to believe it was terrorists almost to strongly. Another question posed is, why were the identities of these supposed hijackers never discovered and why are there so many official contradictions coming from the White House? Leading me to my third Contention. Contention Three: The 9/11 attacks were staged to get the U.S. into a war with Iraq that would never have been sanctioned otherwise. b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations. Immediately it was declared that the hijackers (even though we didn't "officially" know their identities) were Iraqi and that we must invade Iraq immediately to stop further attacks. Because it was such a controversial topic in 2000 talk of a war with Iraq was stopped because both candidates saw that if they supported a war public opinion would be against them thus causing them to lose the election. But this only shows that a war was definitely on the mind of the Bush administration. How convenient then that eight months into his first term George W. Bush was able to declare a state of national emergency and plunge our country into a long and bloody conflict with Iraq. The reasons for this have been many and varied, first the WMD's, oops sorry there were none. Next what was it? the oil? Iraqi freedom? Bush's chance to prove he could outdo his father? We don't know. I assume they do. In Conclusion you can see that there are many reasons to suppose that it was not merely a terrorist act. Terrorists have a built in motive that can be used to pin the blame on them, namely their religion demands it of them. This is such a strong motive that it may have been hoped it would cover up our own governments motives. As long as they can keep the nation and the people in fear they need no other weapon to keep us under their thumb. As long as they can keep our young military men and women overseas fighting then it's considered unpatriotic not to agree with everything they say. Fear is a powerful weapon and even though it may be a hard truth to accept we need to scrutinize this closely and find out if maybe we have been blinded to the truth by a government that values power more than its people. Thank You