NationStates Jolt Archive


Stirring the Pot

Traduce
11-08-2005, 07:22
I'm not saying what I believe on this one... but I'm curious as to the response it will get.

Enjoy, and let the war games begin!!!

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
Eichen
11-08-2005, 07:30
Rediculous drivvle we've all seen a thousand times. For some people, it's very hard for them to see how a tiny group of hateful religious fanatics could cause so much destruction. That doesn't change the fact that it happened.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 07:32
Ive seen that before, and by someone who posted it on this site.

The Conservatives really hate that video, becuase it makes them think that just maybe..they are being lied to with the rest of the people.

As for me....all I know is that a plane the size of the one that reputedly hit the pentagon, would have made a bigger mess, and there would been far more debris.

Theres something someones not telling us.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 07:32
Rediculous drivvle we've all seen a thousand times. For some people, it's very hard for them to see how a tiny group of hateful religious fanatics could cause so much destruction. That doesn't change the fact that it happened.


So, would you care to explain why its drivel?
AkhPhasa
11-08-2005, 07:35
This is always fun to watch. :)
Pencil 17
11-08-2005, 07:36
SIGH!
That's all.
Sdaeriji
11-08-2005, 07:39
Where did AA Flight 77 go, then?
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 07:44
Where did AA Flight 77 go, then?


A fair question.

Can you find a list of names of those who were aboard?
Olantia
11-08-2005, 07:50
A fair question.

Can you find a list of names of those who were aboard?
Here's one: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
Eichen
11-08-2005, 07:51
So, would you care to explain why its drivel?
First let me say that I am neither conservative or Republican.
And you should mistrust government. Skepticism is good.

But this is midirected, and paranoid. There was a conspiracy. A conspiracy set forth by religious whackjobs against the American economy. Simple.

I'm not really on the side that needs to give explainations here. You can do a few minutes of Googling and find out exactly what evidence supports the original assumption-- That crazy fundies flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you, it's public info.

This movie did nothing but pose questions, not answer them conclusively. The ball's in the conspiracists court here, you should be trying to convince us that what we've been told is incorrect, not the other way around.
Can you tell me exactly what in this movie convinced you?
What empirical evidence do you have to support this crackpot conspiracy theory?
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 07:53
Here's one: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html


Thanks.

Now, anyone know how many passengers a plane of this size can hold?
Olantia
11-08-2005, 07:55
Thanks.

Now, anyone know how many passengers a plane of this size can hold?
A 757? 200-250 passengers, if I remember correctly.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:01
First let me say that I am neither conservative or Republican.
And you should mistrust government. Skepticism is good.

But this is midirected, and paranoid. There was a conspiracy. A conspiracy set forth by religious whackjobs against the American economy. Simple.

I'm not really on the side that needs to give explainations here. You can do a few minutes of Googling and find out exactly what evidence supports the original assumption-- That crazy fundies flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you, it's public info.

This movie did nothing but pose questions, not answer them conclusively. The ball's in the conspiracists court here, you should be trying to convince us that what we've been told is incorrect, not the other way around.
Can you tell me exactly what in this movie convinced you?
What empirical evidence do you have to support this crackpot conspiracy theory?

Ok you've explained yourself, allow me to do the same.
Im definately a Liberal, and technically an Independant, as I dont belong to either party.

I am however, extremely skeptical of this administration.
I cant help it when Im feeling like Ive been lied to , for two and a half years.

As for this video, first off, let me say that Im not buying it completely, but the fact that it raises some pretty compelling points, should not be ignored.

The lack of debris is interesting, so is the lack of damage by fire.
Theres a lot of jet fuel aboard one of those jets, and if a plane of that size did hit, there should have been more fire.

The lack of damage to the grounds around the pentagon is interesting too.

Is any of iron-clad?

No..but what in life is?

I dont have the answers, but I do know when something doesnt make sense, or enough sense, in my own mind.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:02
A 757? 200-250 passengers, if I remember correctly.


Where was this plane headed?

The reason I ask this, is becuae Im wondering why it only had 50-some passengers, and how much fuel it was carrying.
LazyHippies
11-08-2005, 08:05
Where was this plane headed?

The reason I ask this, is becuae Im wondering why it only had 50-some passengers, and how much fuel it was carrying.

Flights arent always full. Ive been on flights that were rather empty. Ive also been on flights that were overbooked. Both extremes happen.
Olantia
11-08-2005, 08:08
Where was this plane headed?

The reason I ask this, is becuae Im wondering why it only had 50-some passengers, and how much fuel it was carrying.
Flight 77 was headed to Los Angeles.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:12
Flight 77 was headed to Los Angeles.


so presumably, it would have been carrying enough fuel to make one or two hold-over/refuelings, and then off to LA.

So its tanks were full likely.

Doesnt seem like enough of an explosion, to me.
Eichen
11-08-2005, 08:13
Ok you've explained yourself, allow me to do the same.
Im definately a Liberal, and technically an Independant, as I dont belong to either party.

I am however, extremely skeptical of this administration.
I cant help it when Im feeling like Ive been lied to , for two and a half years.

As for this video, first off, let me say that Im not buying it completely, but the fact that it raises some pretty compelling points, should not be ignored.

The lack of debris is interesting, so is the lack of damage by fire.
Theres a lot of jet fuel aboard one of those jets, and if a plane of that size did hit, there should have been more fire.

The lack of damage to the grounds around the pentagon is interesting too.

Is any of iron-clad?

No..but what in life is?

I dont have the answers, but I do know when something doesnt make sense, or enough sense, in my own mind.
Okay, sounds like you have a healthy dose of skepticism toward the current regime.. I mean administration. You're not alone.

There are a lot of people out there who live for conspiracy theories though, and they usually have a lame, unscientific, all-questions-no-answers approach to any tradgedy or success that the US experiences or takes part in. In other words, they're paranoid whackjobs without other hobbies.

That aside, this should answer a lot of questions people have about the attacks of 9-11.

Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9-11 Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)

There's plenty of other reasons to accuse and criticize the current administration. I just think it's best that we don't get lost in paranoid fantasies and forget what the real problems are, as that's not very constructive.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:14
Flights arent always full. Ive been on flights that were rather empty. Ive also been on flights that were overbooked. Both extremes happen.


True.

If it was the first flight of the morning to LA, from its departure point, it may have been near empty.

Hard to say...but either way, I dont see those numbers meaning much.
Eichen
11-08-2005, 08:20
To save time, you can also start here:

Big Plane, Small Holes (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y)
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 08:22
First let me say that I am neither conservative or Republican.
And you should mistrust government. Skepticism is good.

But this is midirected, and paranoid. There was a conspiracy. A conspiracy set forth by religious whackjobs against the American economy. Simple.

I'm not really on the side that needs to give explainations here. You can do a few minutes of Googling and find out exactly what evidence supports the original assumption-- That crazy fundies flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you, it's public info.

This movie did nothing but pose questions, not answer them conclusively. The ball's in the conspiracists court here, you should be trying to convince us that what we've been told is incorrect, not the other way around.
Can you tell me exactly what in this movie convinced you?
What empirical evidence do you have to support this crackpot conspiracy theory?


I don't loke conspiracy theories at all, but in fairness, my very first reaction to these attacks (after the initial shock wore off) was to ask the age-old question:

Who profited from those attacks?

It definitely wasn't Al-Qeada, they could have profited a lot more from those 4 planes.
Imagine yourself to be a person absolutely fanatic about one thing, and you want to destroy, you want to hurt people who disagree with you, you want to make them suffer, you want to wipe them of the face of the earth.
And then imagine you have 4 planes and pilots willing to kill themselves with them. What targets would you select? Would you select targets that are, in effect, little more than symbols for the power of your enemy? Or would you target something that will really REALLY hurt them and maybe even make them incapabale of action for a few months or more?
If I was in that situation, I wouldn't choose the symbols. I wouldn't waste a thought on symbols. I would go for the throat. I would direct those planes into one or two nuclear power plants, the Hoover damm, things like that. Things that will kill people, destroy their environment, incapacitate them, wreck their economy and their defense system.

But then, who would go an destroy American symbols? What can be acheived by that? What do you hurt?
You hurt American pride. You scare people. You render them paranoid and "patriotic".
Who profits from that?
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:24
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Hmm..heres one account of wreckage.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:26
But then, who would go an destroy American symbols? What can be acheived by that? What do you hurt?
You hurt American pride. You scare people. You render them paranoid and "patriotic".
Who profits from that?

A President with an agenda of war.
Eichen
11-08-2005, 08:30
I don't loke conspiracy theories at all, but in fairness, my very first reaction to these attacks (after the initial shock wore off) was to ask the age-old question:

Who profited from those attacks?

It definitely wasn't Al-Qeada, they could have profited a lot more from those 4 planes.
Imagine yourself to be a person absolutely fanatic about one thing, and you want to destroy, you want to hurt people who disagree with you, you want to make them suffer, you want to wipe them of the face of the earth.
And then imagine you have 4 planes and pilots willing to kill themselves with them. What targets would you select? Would you select targets that are, in effect, little more than symbols for the power of your enemy? Or would you target something that will really REALLY hurt them and maybe even make them incapabale of action for a few months or more?
If I was in that situation, I wouldn't choose the symbols. I wouldn't waste a thought on symbols. I would go for the throat. I would direct those planes into one or two nuclear power plants, the Hoover damm, things like that. Things that will kill people, destroy their environment, incapacitate them, wreck their economy and their defense system.

But then, who would go an destroy American symbols? What can be acheived by that? What do you hurt?
You hurt American pride. You scare people. You render them paranoid and "patriotic".
Who profits from that?
You seem reasonable. Would you expect that men willing to kill themselves for a God who'll provide them with 1000 virgins in an assumed afterlife are also highly reasonable?
You can't use reason when it comes to religious fanatic's motivations.
Grampus
11-08-2005, 08:33
You seem reasonable. Would you expect that men willing to kill themselves for a God who'll provide them with 1000 virgins in an assumed afterlife are also highly reasonable?
You can't use reason when it comes to religious fanatic's motivations.

72 virgins, and even that is a matter for debate.
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 08:34
A President with an agenda of war.

Yes... and no. I really don't know, I keep arriving at that conclusion, but I don't like it. It scares the hell out of me... :(
Eichen
11-08-2005, 08:36
72 virgins, and even that is a matter for debate.
Oh my, what a friggin' gyp! They'll all be completely banged out in 50 years. :D

Honestly people, you give this administration far, far too much credit!
Grampus
11-08-2005, 08:38
A President with an agenda of war.

Rather a round about way of achieving the war on Iraq that he had been dreaming of though, isn't it? And surely if the hawks in the White House had been capable of cooking up this whole attack on the Pentagon malarky and not get caught on, then they could have produced some rather more convincing fabrications to justify the invasion of Iraq instead of the frankly weak WMD shebang.
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 08:38
You seem reasonable. Would you expect that men willing to kill themselves for a God who'll provide them with 1000 virgins in an assumed afterlife are also highly reasonable?
You can't use reason when it comes to religious fanatic's motivations.

That's one of the mistakes people made in regard to Hitler, for example. The fact that you are a crazy, megalomaniac, paranoid fanatist doesn't mean that you're intelligence is below average (in many cases, it actually is above average), and it doesn't mean you can't figure out strategies.

One person I wouldn't ever take for a simpleton is Usama Bin Laden. He may be a religious fanatic, but he has brains enough to come up with a program to build up infrstructure in Sudan, establish an international terror organisation and then escape the USA, its army and its secret agencies for over 10 years now...
Grampus
11-08-2005, 08:40
One person I wouldn't ever take for a simpleton is Usama Bin Laden. He may be a religious fanatic, but he has brains enough to come up with a program to build up infrstructure in Sudan, establish an international terror organisation and then escape the USA, its army and its secret agencies for over 10 years now...

Not forgetting that the attack on the WTC was an act of genius. Vile, sick and unpleasent genius, but genius nonetheless.
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 08:42
Not forgetting that the attack on the WTC was an act of genius. Vile, sick and unpleasent genius, but genius nonetheless.

... and pretty ineffective. It killed 3000 people and set the whole world looking for Usama. I don't see how that would have helped his cause.
Eichen
11-08-2005, 08:44
That's one of the mistakes people made in regard to Hitler, for example. The fact that you are a crazy, megalomaniac, paranoid fanatist doesn't mean that you're intelligence is below average (in many cases, it actually is above average), and it doesn't mean you can't figure out strategies.

One person I wouldn't ever take for a smpleton is Usama Bin Laden. He may be a religious fanatic, but he has brains enough to come up with a program to build up infrstructure in Sudan, establish an international terror organisation and then escape the USA, its army and its secret agencies for over 10 years now...
This is still introspection and hypothetical assumption. Feelings of suspiscion don't prove a thing, empirical evidence does. Otherwise, we should allow the Intelligent Design freaks into the science classroom.

Really, do you think this admin could pull off the greatest scam in history, and keep it under wraps? The same admin that couldn't protect Rove from an email? If they could orchestrate 9-11 without a hitch on our own soil, don't you think they could've planted WOMD over in Iraq to justify the invasion?

Again I'll say, you guys give GWB and the gang wayyyy too much credit. ;)
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 08:44
Rather a round about way of achieving the war on Iraq that he had been dreaming of though, isn't it? And surely if the hawks in the White House had been capable of cooking up this whole attack on the Pentagon malarky and not get caught on, then they could have produced some rather more convincing fabrications to justify the invasion of Iraq instead of the frankly weak WMD shebang.

If I remember correctly, he trying to pull that argument of after the rest of the world refused to fall for the "Usama is hiding there"-argument, followed by the "Iraq supports Al-Qaeda"-statement. Only after that failed he went in for the WMD, and now changed the excuse for the war into "humanitarian reasons"
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 08:47
This is still introspection and hypothetical assumption. Feelings of suspiscion don't prove a thing, empirical evidence does. Otherwise, we should allow the Intelligent Design freaks into the science classroom.

Really, do you think this admin could pull off the greatest scam in history, and keep it under wraps? The same admin that couldn't protect Rove from an email? If they could orchestrate 9-11 without a hitch on our own soil, don't you think they could've planted WOMD over in Iraq to justify the invasion?

Again I'll say, you guys give GWB and the gang wayyyy too much credit. ;)


That's true as well... as I said, I really don't know what to think in that case. My logic tells me that Al-Qaeda is not very likely to have done it, and my experience tells me that governments have a way to be found out about scams of any size. I really, honestly don't know. :headbang:
Grampus
11-08-2005, 08:49
... and pretty ineffective. It killed 3000 people and set the whole world looking for Usama. I don't see how that would have helped his cause.

It did however manage to bring fear to Americans, something which earlier bomb attacks had failed to do.
Olantia
11-08-2005, 08:51
...

Really, do you think this admin could pull off the greatest scam in history, and keep it under wraps? The same admin that couldn't protect Rove from an email? If they could orchestrate 9-11 without a hitch on our own soil, don't you think they could've planted WOMD over in Iraq to justify the invasion?

Again I'll say, you guys give GWB and the gang wayyyy too much credit. ;)
Yes, that's the strongest argument against the conspiracy theory. I generally don't like them, although 5 years ago I was ready to believe in 'The FSB blew up blocks of flats in Moscow'. But then again--too hard to keep it secret, and the theory proponents had an axe to grind... and no one of the accused has been Chechen--couldn't the FSB find some scapegoats of 'right' nationality if its aim was to 'blame the Chechens'?
Eichen
11-08-2005, 08:54
The real conspiracy here is so simple, it's pathetic. GWB used the tragic events of 9-11 to take advantage of growing anti-Islamic sentiments here in the USA to finish what Daddy started, and failed at doing...

Taking Hussein down.

Most Americans still think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11!

Now that's a conspiracy.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:55
This is still introspection and hypothetical assumption. Feelings of suspiscion don't prove a thing, empirical evidence does. Otherwise, we should allow the Intelligent Design freaks into the science classroom.

Really, do you think this admin could pull off the greatest scam in history, and keep it under wraps? The same admin that couldn't protect Rove from an email? If they could orchestrate 9-11 without a hitch on our own soil, don't you think they could've planted WOMD over in Iraq to justify the invasion?

Again I'll say, you guys give GWB and the gang wayyyy too much credit. ;)


Yanno..thats the only thing that keeps me from becoming a full-blown conspiracy theorist.

I dont believe that Dubya and the boys are capable of sucessfully pulling off this kind of stuff.
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 08:56
The real conspiracy here is so simple, it's pathetic. GWB used the tragic events of 9-11 to take advantage of growing anti-Islamic sentiments here in the USA to finish what Daddy started, and failed at doing...

Taking Hussein down.

Most Americans still think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11!

Now that's a conspiracy.


100% agree.
Cabra West
11-08-2005, 09:10
It did however manage to bring fear to Americans, something which earlier bomb attacks had failed to do.

Yes, but in what way does he profit from this newfound hysteria and paranoia?

Unless... unless he is far more sublte than even I give him credit for.
The USA is becoming increasingly paranoid about terrorism, blindly attacking more or less inoffensive nations to no avail. As a result, it has alienated almost all its former allies, most of whom started to view the country like a bear with a thorn in his paw - dangerous, unpredictable, and wholly unwilling to have that thorn removed. The image of the USA has suffered immensly during the last few years, if this continues on for say, another 4 or 5 years, the USA will have managed to diplomatically isolate itself absolutely, which will make it a lot more vulnerable and easier to attack.

Maybe that's why Al-Qaeda is lying low, they just have to wait now and watch George W. working for them...
Nowoland
11-08-2005, 09:36
The evidence in against a plane crashing into the pentagon is in my opinion greater than the other way round. The debunking website mentioned earlier is no more reliable than any other site on that topic. In the end there's eyewitness against eyewitness. Comparing the pentagon impact ground with other similar crash grounds (Amsterdam springs to mind), it is definitely an extremely untypical site!

Now to the questiones:
Who profits (especially from the pentagon crash):
Definitely not bin Laden - in effect the aftermath of 9/11 saw the destruction of Al Qaida as it existed before - a hierarchic well structured organisation with a clear chain of command.
Definitely not the Taliban. (Strange that they were attacked after they refused to have an American owned pipeline built through their country, a pipeline now being built.)
Definitely not Hussein
Bush profited - his popularity rankings were so low prior 9/11 as to be practically non existent. He bolstered his presidency and managed to wage ware against his favourite enemy, Sadam.
The political right wing profited. They achieved a reduction in personal freedom that would not have been possible without anything like 9/11 to trigger it.
Where's the money?
A lot of money was made in stocks surrounding 9/11. Very unusual stock option movements just prior 9/11 made some people extremely rich. Most, but not all traces of these activities point to the middle east and Asia.
Bush's mate Cheney, or rather his old company profited enormously.
All defense companies made a killing in contracts as a result of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Would it be possible to pull off a conspiracy over a long period of time?
Very unlikely. The problem of all conspiracy theories around 9/11 is that they require an enormous amount of accessories to the conspiracy (ranging from several hundred to several thousands. What would happen, were such a conspiracy properly exposed? It would not only discredit the president ans some senior members of government but the US as a whole, the entire system of government, the military and security agencies. In other words, the stakes and involved risk are so high that no sane person would contemplate it.

Where does that leave us?
Logically it is pretty obvious that 9/11 can't be a US government conspiracy as such, but there are still many (too many) open questions. The government is not helping the matter by keeping back material that might actually clear up a few things (like the confiscated videos, like the black boxes ...), It is also very fishy of the US not to release material needed to convict Mounir al-Motassadeq in Hamburg of logistically supporting the 9/11 pilots (he's accused of abetting mass murder). The US originally wanted him extradited, but when he was brought before a German court they refused to send the evidence needed. Looks like he's going free in a few weeks.


So all in all a very very fishy and unsatisfying situation all round.
NERVUN
11-08-2005, 09:59
The ever reliable snopes.com also goes into this one: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
BackwoodsSquatches
11-08-2005, 10:11
The ever reliable snopes.com also goes into this one: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm


Heres an interesting piece from that site.

Next question:


3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:


Now the only problem I have with that explaination is the wings.

The wings of a 757 are huge, and would have ripped off the fuselage, and would have been scattered about.
The report says "small pieces were laying in the courtyard",

Not big chunks of wing.....

Why?
NERVUN
11-08-2005, 11:29
Heres an interesting piece from that site.

Now the only problem I have with that explaination is the wings.

The wings of a 757 are huge, and would have ripped off the fuselage, and would have been scattered about.
The report says "small pieces were laying in the courtyard",

Not big chunks of wing.....

Why?

A couple of reasons, one (as snopes says) one of the wings folded in with the plane and went into the building, the second wing left a nice imprint of itself on the building itself (snopes as the pic and you can see the wing impact). Finally though, you did know the fuel tanks for modern jetliners are in the wings right? That much fuel ignited and that's why there isn't any large chunks of wings.
Rougu
11-08-2005, 12:13
Isnt bush meant to be a member of the skull and crossbones secret society? surely he could get other powerful contacts to help him ;)
Interesting Slums
11-08-2005, 14:01
Thinking about it, Bush is the perfect person to head this kind of thing.

He isnt intelligent enough to figure out what is actually happening, so in speechs and interveiws there is no chance of him letting anything slip.

Bush's administration has proved in the elections that although bush is a simpleton, the people behind him are extremely intelligent, and experts at propaganda.

I'm not saying I believe any of this, but if it was true, I think that Bush probably wouldnt be directly involved, he wouldnt be able to hide something this big.

If it was true he would be a puppet, and the people behind him would be the masterminds
Sabbatis
11-08-2005, 17:52
In my view, the onus is on the conspiracy people to explain what happened if not flight 77. A missile? Another plane? A bomb? Any proponent of those theories now must prove that flight 77 did not exist, or prove its whereabouts (including passengers).

Stating that Bush has a motive does not constitute evidence of a conspiracy, and that's all I've seen offered so far.

The argument of no plane parts has been answered adequately. The thin-skinned plane was shredded as it penetrated the structure, the wings were destroyed in the fuel explosion which is clearly visible at impact. That's a fuel explosion, not a bomb, for sure. Much of the thin scraps of aluminum plane structure was destroyed in the resulting fire, a fire hot enough to warp the steel girders in the building and permit its collapse.

The argument that the flight didn't exist has been answered with a list of crew and passengers on board. Their deaths could easily be verified by researching death certificates, interviewing family members, ticket records,etc. This is near-impossible to fake, in my opinion.

There's also a group that thinks the earth is flat, and another that thinks we've never been to the moon. They have "evidence" too. I call Occam's Razor on this one.