8 Questions for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement

As everyone knows, the 9/11 Truth movement is a loose group of people who believe that the United States government committed the 9/11 attacks.

Now despite the fact that they have never been able to prove that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, they still hold steadfast to the belief that the government did.

It seems to me that most people in that movement have never really sat down and asked themselves some serious, logical questions about the attacks.

Here are eight questions that I feel that people in the 9/11 Truth movement should ask themselves, as well as should be asked by others:

1. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why would they hit more then one building?

Hitting one building with a plane would have been more then enough for the government to justifiably giving it an excuse to go to war. More then one would be overkill.

2. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why did it attack the Pentagon for?

The Pentagon is the United States top military headquarters. Hitting it with a plane could have killed our top military leaders and seriously harmed our ability to fight. The government attacking the Pentagon makes no sense both logically and militarily.

3. Assuming that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then why would they be brought down in the first place?

There would be no reason for the government to bring down the towers. Not only would flying a couple of planes into the towers would have been more then enough to justify going to war, but bringing down the towers would be another example of overkill. Also, it would have been cheaper to repair the towers then it has been to clean up the rubble and build new buildings at the site.

4. Why would WTC 7 have been intentionally brought down?

Wouldn't intentionally bringing down WTC 7 have been a pointless action? There would have been no reason for the government to ever bring that building down and create a bigger mess. Not to mention many in the 9/11 Truth movement see that building's collapse as a "smoking gun" for a controlled demolition. If the government did do this, shouldn't they have had the foresight to see that it might look suspicious to some people?

5. Assuming that drones were used, then how come the forth plane crashed in a field instead of hitting another building?

If the government had complete control of all the aircraft, then why didn't they crash the last one into a building? Why would they just waste it and crash it into a field for no reason what so ever?

6. If the attacks were allowed to happen so we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and gain control of those two countries natural resources, then why haven't prices on things like oil gone down?

One of the biggest claims from the 9/11 Truth movement is that the attacks were staged so that we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq, and gain control of those countries oil fields, along with other natural resources. The problem with this is that the cost of oil based products (gasoline, diesel, home heating oil) has kept going up instead of going down since the invasions of those two countries. So if we invaded those countries for their oil, then how come our oil prices have been steadily rising? And how come very little oil has ever actually come out of those two countries since we invaded them?

7. Why haven't we seen a serious decrease in our civil liberties?

While it's claimed that our civil liberties have decreased since the 9/11 attacks, in fact they really haven't in most cases. Most people haven't even been impacted at all by the Patriot Act. You can still create blogs that speak out against the government. You can still claim the government committed the 9/11 attacks. You can still belong to anti-government organizations. So why haven't people like this ever been thrown in jail? Wouldn't they be the government's biggest enemies?

8. How come the 9/11 Truth movement has never presented any evidence that has not been dis-proven?

One of the main problems with the 9/11 Truth movement is that it constantly presents old evidence that has been discredit and dis-proven, and rarely, if ever, presents any new evidence. So why hasn't the 9/11 Truth movement ever revealed any real evidence of what they consider to be the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks and would prove what they were claiming is at least possibly true?