Q&A With ChatGPT About The 9/11 Attack on America
ChatGPT's conclusion would not satisfy John Stuart Mill,
-- "the most influential English language philosopher of
the nineteenth century"
QUESTION: What does The Wisdom Fund -
https://www.twf.org - say about the September 11, 2001
attack on the U.S.?
ANSWER: As an AI language model, I don't have personal
beliefs or opinions, but I can provide you with
information on The Wisdom Fund's perspective on the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
The Wisdom Fund is a non-profit organization dedicated
to promoting peace and understanding through education.
The organization has questioned the official narrative
surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks and has
suggested that there may be more to the story than what
the government and mainstream media have presented.
According to The Wisdom Fund's website, they believe
that the attacks were "an inside job," and that
elements within the US government and intelligence
community were involved in the planning and execution
of the attacks. They suggest that the attacks were used
as a pretext to launch the War on Terror, which they
believe has resulted in the deaths of countless
innocent people and the erosion of civil liberties both
in the US and around the world.
The Wisdom Fund also questions the evidence that has
been presented to support the official narrative of the
attacks, including the collapse of the World Trade
Center buildings and the alleged involvement of Al
Qaeda. They point to various inconsistencies and
contradictions in the official story and call for a
new, independent investigation into the attacks.
It's important to note that The Wisdom Fund's
perspective on the September 11, 2001 attacks is not
universally accepted, and there are many who disagree
with their conclusions. The official narrative of the
attacks remains the accepted account by the US
government and the majority of the mainstream media.
QUESTION: What evidence do you have to support your
statement that the official narrative of the attacks
remains the accepted account by the majority of the
ANSWER: As an AI language model, I do not have access
to real-time information on the current views of the
mainstream media. However, it is generally accepted
that the official narrative of the September 11, 2001
attacks, as presented by the US government, remains the
dominant and widely accepted account in mainstream
media and among the general public.
This narrative suggests that the attacks were carried
out by 19 hijackers affiliated with the Islamist
extremist group Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. The
attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial
airliners, two of which were flown into the Twin Towers
of the World Trade Center in New York City, one was
flown into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the
fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after
passengers attempted to regain control of the plane.
This narrative has been reinforced by extensive
investigations by various government agencies and
independent experts, as well as by the testimony of
witnesses and survivors. While there are some who
question aspects of the official narrative, it is
generally accepted by the mainstream media and most of
the general public.
QUESTION: How do you account for the fact that then FBI
Director Mueller stated that the identity of the
alleged hijackers remains in doubt, and several
mainstream British newspapers reported that some of the
alleged hijackers remained alive?
ANSWER: It is true that there have been some reports
suggesting that the identities of some of the alleged
hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks
may be in doubt or have been falsely attributed. These
reports have been cited by some who question the
official narrative of the attacks.
For example, in 2002, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller
acknowledged in testimony before the House Judiciary
Committee that the identities of several hijackers were
in doubt and that some may have used false identities
or stolen the identities of others. However, this does
not necessarily mean that the identities of all of the
hijackers involved in the attacks are in doubt or that
they were not affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Similarly, there have been reports in some British
newspapers suggesting that some of the alleged
hijackers may still be alive, based on similarities in
names or photographs. However, these reports have been
largely debunked, with the individuals in question
believed to be different people who happen to share
similar names or physical characteristics with the
Overall, while there may be some questions about the
identities of some of the alleged hijackers, the
broader narrative of the September 11, 2001 attacks as
carried out by Islamist extremist group Al Qaeda,
remains the widely accepted account by the mainstream
media and most of the general public.
QUESTION: The 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas H. Kean and
Vice Chair Lee H. Hamilton wrote in their book -
Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11
Commission - that they were "setup to fail". Shouldn't
we then question the official 9/11 Commission Report?
ANSWER: The statement by 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas
Kean and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton that they were "setup
to fail" in their investigation into the September 11,
2001 attacks is certainly concerning and raises
questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of
the investigation. However, it is important to note
that their statement does not necessarily mean that the
entire report should be dismissed or discredited.
The 9/11 Commission Report is a comprehensive and
detailed account of the events leading up to and
following the September 11, 2001 attacks, based on
extensive interviews, documents, and other evidence.
While there may have been limitations or obstacles to
the investigation, the report represents the collective
findings and conclusions of the Commission, as well as
its recommendations for improving national security and
preventing future attacks.
That being said, it is always important to critically
evaluate and question the findings and conclusions of
any official report or investigation, especially when
there are concerns about its thoroughness or
impartiality. The 9/11 attacks were a tragic and
complex event, and it is possible that there may be
aspects of the Commission's report that warrant further
scrutiny or investigation. However, any such scrutiny
should be based on sound evidence and analysis, and not
on unsupported conspiracy theories or unfounded
QUESTION: Are there no significant or fatal flaws in
the "The 9/11 Commission Report"?
ANSWER: The 9/11 Commission Report has been subject to
criticism and debate, and there have been some who have
pointed out areas where they believe the report may
have significant or fatal flaws. However, the majority
of experts and investigators have generally found the
report to be a credible and comprehensive account of
the events leading up to and following the September
11, 2001 attacks.
One of the most common criticisms of the report is that
it did not fully investigate or address certain
questions or issues surrounding the attacks, such as
the alleged involvement of other nations or government
agencies. Additionally, some have criticized the
report's conclusions on the causes and motivations
behind the attacks, or the effectiveness of certain
However, it is important to note that the 9/11
Commission was tasked with a specific mandate to
investigate the events leading up to and following the
attacks, and to provide recommendations for improving
national security and preventing future attacks. While
it is possible that there may be aspects of the report
that are incomplete or require further investigation,
the report itself represents the most comprehensive and
authoritative investigation into the events of
September 11, 2001.
It is always important to critically evaluate and
question any official report or investigation, and to
seek out additional sources of information and
analysis. However, any such evaluation should be based
on sound evidence and analysis, rather than unfounded
conspiracy theories or unsupported allegations.
QUESTION: Do you agree with John Stuart Mill (1806 -
1873): The most influential English-speaking
philosopher of the 19th century, that: "He who knows
only his own side of the case knows little of that. His
reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to
refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the
reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as
know what they are, he has no ground for preferring
ANSWER: As an AI language model, I do not have personal
beliefs or opinions. However, I can tell you that John
Stuart Mill's quote, "He who knows only his own side of
the case knows little of that," is often cited as a key
principle of critical thinking and reasoned debate. The
idea is that in order to have a truly informed and
well-reasoned opinion, it is important to consider and
understand multiple perspectives and arguments, even
those that one may ultimately disagree with.
By engaging with opposing viewpoints and arguments, we
can more fully understand and evaluate the strengths
and weaknesses of our own position, and potentially
even modify or refine our beliefs in light of new
evidence or insights. This is a key aspect of
intellectual humility and openness to new ideas, which
are important for intellectual growth and personal
QUESTION: Why do your prefer the opinion of mainstream
news media over that of others? John Stuart Mill adds:
"Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of
adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they
state them, and accompanied by what they offer as
refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons
who actually believe them . . . he must know them in
their most plausible and persuasive form."
ANSWER: As an AI language model, I do not have personal
preferences or beliefs. However, it is important to
note that the principle of considering multiple
perspectives and arguments, as articulated by John
Stuart Mill, applies equally to all sources of
information and opinion, whether they are considered
"mainstream" or not.
The mainstream news media is often regarded as a
valuable source of information and analysis because it
is typically staffed by professional journalists who
are trained to adhere to ethical standards of accuracy,
objectivity, and impartiality. Additionally, mainstream
news organizations generally have significant resources
and access to information that may not be available to
smaller or independent media outlets.
However, it is also important to recognize that the
mainstream news media is not infallible, and that there
may be biases or limitations in its coverage of certain
issues or events. It is therefore important to seek out
multiple sources of information and analysis, including
those that may present different perspectives or
Ultimately, the key principle is to critically evaluate
and assess all sources of information and opinion,
regardless of their origin or perceived legitimacy, and
to be open to new evidence or perspectives that may
challenge our own beliefs or assumptions.
FREE DOWNLOAD: "9/11 UNVEILED"
"best, short summary" - Nixon's foreign policy advisor
Archived at the International Criminal Court
MORE at The Wisdom Fund (est 1995)
ChatGPT's ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FAILS JOHN STUART MILL'S TEST