9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

Freddie59

Wibbs wrote: »

I really doubt they realised the scale of it though.

Watched a programme last night which centred on the architect of the 9/11 commission. The number of errors he highlighted was staggering. Just some:

1. The CIA were tracking some of the hijackers. Never told anyone else, as it was OUTSIDE the USA.:rolleyes: They discovered the boys had a visa which allowed them to enter the US at will.

2. When they got to America, the FBI were not informed. Arguments broke out between both agencies when the FBI sought information.

3. The hijackers were carrying four-inch blades - which weren't considered to be a weapon.:rolleyes: These were found in a bag search PRIOR to boarding the planes.

The hijackers of Flight 11 were pulled from the check-in queue, as advanced software of the day identified them as risks. This is where the blades were found. And they were still allowed board the plane.

And so it went on....if the Americans were guilty of anything, it was lack of leadership and stupidity, coupled with dereliction of duty by the agencies assigned to protect the country.

Freddie59

Augmerson wrote: »

Conspiracy of Negligence. They knew well in advance that an attack was likely - there is tonnes of evidence pointing our various American and other international intelligence agencies who knew about an impending attack - but let it happen as it gave them carte blanche to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq and seriously curb civil freedoms.

I presume you're talking about civil freedoms in the US?

gbee

Augmerson wrote: »

Conspiracy of Negligence. They knew well in advance that an attack was likely -

Taking that point, we now know that the ordinary NYPD bobby on the street foiled at least two gangs and the FBI had deported a few more known sympathisers on 'trivial' violations.

We also know that a few were released from custody ~ seemingly the ordinary phase one protection, the bobby on the street had foiled the hijackers plans to have more planes in the air.

At the time they would not have known ~ but if the ordinary bobby had stopped at least two planes being hijacked through routine policing ~ I don't buy for an instant the the FBI, CIA and Black Ops would be fooled.

Logical Fallacy

Augmerson wrote: »

Conspiracy of Negligence. They knew well in advance that an attack was likely - there is tonnes of evidence pointing our various American and other international intelligence agencies who knew about an impending attack - but let it happen as it gave them carte blanche to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq and seriously curb civil freedoms.

There is a pretty big difference between knowing of an impending attack and knowing the precise details of the attack, no?

niallo27

Wibbs wrote: »

The twin towers coming down like that I have no issue with. It was a "bad" design in the event. Maximised from the get go for floor space so all, or most of the weight was supported by the outer skin. Kinda like a monocoque car as opposed to a car with a separate chassis. Lose enough of the "skin" and it's gonna crumple and fall and go down very fast. Building 7 still intrigues me I have to admit. It's of a different design. More a building with an internal "chassis" so the conspiracy nuts have some sort of a point there. No other building with such a structure as failed so catastrophically due to fire, nor so quickly. I personally watched that skyscraper in Madrid http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG burn for over a day from top to bottom pretty much. The whole thing was a column of fire. And while bits of it fell off it stayed standing. They had to demolish it in the end.

Now while I have a head scratcher about building 7 I'm not going with conspiracy, well not of the 911 kind. I'd be going with conspiracy of the crappy building(and fire) regulations and design kind. Those who may be responsible for that if they exist are likely very happy for some to believe it was a controlled demolition. It shouldn't have failed like that.

I would have more faith in the notion that certain elements in the US government had an inkling of something afoot. Something useful in prosecution of political aims. I really doubt they realised the scale of it though. I defo have faith that there was a lot of bullshít going on with the linking of Saddam Hussain and Iraq in all of this though. Weapons of mass destruction my arse. Links to Al Qaeda my arse. If there was a false flag type "conspiracy" going on, that was it. Hitting Afghanistan I can see, but Iraq? Utter BS there.

Its has got me thinking too, its just too odd that it was the only building around the towers that had a complete collapse not even building underneath the towers collapsed in full plus all building around WTC 7 were intact. If people are saying the steel weakens with at the heat of these fires, why dont all steel based buildings collapse under fire.

Seachmall

niallo27 wrote: »

why dont all steel based buildings collapse under fire.

Because not all steel buildings have the same floor plan.
Because not all steel buildings are constructed with the same grade material.
Because not all steel buildings are constructed by the same people.
Because not all steel buildings undergo the same treatment.
Because not all steel buildings are the same.

There are literally thousands of factors and variables that influence the structural integrity of a building through the years and thousands of factors and variables in terms of the abuse and damage they're subjected to. But at the end of the day the collapse of this building has been analysed by the experts in the field and the scientific findings point to the fact that this particular building reacted the way they would expect given the placement and heat of the fires as well as debris damage caused. There is no question that the collapse of this building was entirely caused by the incidents of 9/11 and there is no reason to suspect foul play on behalf of the government or any other party outside of what is publicly known.

--Kaiser--

niallo27 wrote: »

Its has got me thinking too, its just too odd that it was the only building around the towers that had a complete collapse not even building underneath the towers collapsed in full plus all building around WTC 7 were intact. If people are saying the steel weakens with at the heat of these fires, why dont all steel based buildings collapse under fire.

There is a huge difference between a building that's on fire and a building that's on fire because a jet plane full of jet fuel has crashed into it

gbee

Seachmall wrote: »

outside of what is publicly known.[/B]

Ah! But there's the rub, to sleep, perchance to dream, but in those dreams of death, what demons may come.

Attributed to William Shakespeare's Hamlet [not a direct quote].

speedboatchase

Was the USS Cole bombing 10 months previous an 'inside job' too? Conspiracy theorists seem pretty quiet on that Bin Laden attack, as it doesn't quite fit in with their stories and suggests that actually al-Qaeda were extremely determined to give the US a black eye.

niallo27

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a building that's on fire and a building that's on fire because a jet plane full of jet fuel has crashed into it

No plane hit WTC 7

Seachmall

gbee wrote: »

Ah! But there's the rub, to sleep, perchance to dream, but in those dreams of death, what demons may come.

Attributed to William Shakespeare's Hamlet [not a direct quote].

You missed the bit where I said "there is no reason to suspect foul play...". So all together that reads:

"there is no reason to suspect foul play [...] outside of what is publicly known."

I.e. There is no reason for an intelligent being to presume the damage was caused by anything other than what we know occurred.

Anything else is irrational and illogical. The research was done and the findings were published. If you have a degree in physics and architecture and are qualified in demolition then feel free to publish your criticisms but until then I, and every other reasonable person, will show humility and stick to the science.

niallo27

Seachmall wrote: »

Because not all steel buildings have the same floor plan.
Because not all steel buildings are constructed with the same grade material.
Because not all steel buildings are constructed by the same people.
Because not all steel buildings undergo the same treatment.
Because not all steel buildings are the same.

There are literally thousands of factors and variables that influence the structural integrity of a building through the years and thousands of factors and variables in terms of the abuse and damage they're subjected to. But at the end of the day the collapse of this building has been analysed by the experts in the field and the scientific findings point to the fact that this particular building reacted the way they would expect given the placement and heat of the fires as well as debris damage caused. There is no question that the collapse of this building was entirely caused by the incidents of 9/11 and there is no reason to suspect foul play on behalf of the government or any other party outside of what is publicly known.

Im not suggesting foul play, im just saying it seems very odd that this building completely collapsed, do you not find it slightly odd, even a tiny bit. Do you not think a building finished in 1987 should have being built to a certain standard with proper grade materials and if it wasnt should it have not being investigated.

Seachmall

niallo27 wrote: »

Im not suggesting foul play, im just saying it seems very odd that this building completely collapsed, do you not find it slightly odd, even a tiny bit. Do you not think a building finished in 1987 should have being built to a certain standard with proper grade materials and if it wasnt should it have not being investigated.

I don't know if it's odd. I wouldn't assume to know. I'm not qualified to come to those conclusions. But the people who are qualified to come to those conclusions have done so and have made their findings public. Maybe it was constructed poorly, maybe it wasn't. Either way there is no evidence to suggest there is any reason other than the obvious as to why it collapsed.

--Kaiser--

gbee wrote: »

Ah! But there's the rub, to sleep, perchance to dream, but in those dreams of death, what demons may come.

Attributed to William Shakespeare's Hamlet [not a direct quote].

Perhaps you meant to quote "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio. than are dreamt of in your philosophy"?

I can't see what relevance your mangling of that soliloquy has (it's about suicide btw)

gbee

niallo27 wrote: »

Its has got me thinking too,

A fact is the Towers and maybe some other buildings in NY were not getting their building code renewed.

A known arson problem has surrounded buildings not getting a renewal licence and this practice in not confined to NY and many a historic building with a preservation order; when it suddenly bursts into flames, the problem goes away.

The twin towers were deemed substandard and faced being pulled, that would cost it's owners much more than building new towers from a green field.

So you can think ~ the building was not to code and it would have been a crime scenes ~ yet the steel went straight to the furnace.

Liam Byrne

Seachmall wrote: »

There is no question that the collapse of this building was entirely caused by the incidents of 9/11 and there is no reason to suspect foul play on behalf of the government or any other party outside of what is publicly known.

Typing it in bold doesn't make it more true, and the US have a track record of lying to suit their agenda, as made patently obvious with the lies about WMDs to fool the public into supporting their invasion of Iraq.

If they hadn't pulled that stunt, then maybe they might be more credible, but since the WTC was used as justification for that, and the lies were also related to that, you can't help being sceptical.

Anyone who says that it "definitely was" an inside job is deluded - if there is proof then they should come out with it.

But conversely, anyone who says it "definitely wasn't" is choosing to ignore an
awful lot of questions that were never adequately answered, such as the non-existent wreckage of United 93 and the dodgy "footage" of the "crash" at the Pentagon.

gbee

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

(it's about suicide btw)

Yes?

I like yours too though.

Seachmall

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Typing it in bold doesn't make it more true

No, but the scientific findings do.

I'm not saying don't be sceptical, I'm saying be reasonable and modest. When in doubt the science is there to guide you.

humanji

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Perhaps you meant to quote "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio. than are dreamt of in your philosophy"?

I can't see what relevance your mangling of that soliloquy has (it's about suicide btw)

That CSI Miami has some great lines in it.

gbee

speedboatchase wrote: »

Was the USS Cole actually al-Qaeda were extremely determined to give the US a black eye.

Problem: Al-Qaeda is a blanket term for all terrorists ~ it does not exist. What exists is a small number of extremists who will walk up to target and explode a device ~ be that delivery but fishing boat, bus, tractor, plane car or walking to a checkpoint ~ that's what they do.

They had to get rid of OSAMA as too many people world wide were wondering why a terrorist was the President of the USA. It became too embarrassing.

niallo27

Why dont they just show us a video of the pentagon being hit, it has more cctv cameras than any other building in the work im led to believe. what harm could possibly be caused by showing these videos, why release an inconclusive 5 frame vid.

nacho libre

As I've said i don't believe 9-11 was an inside job
However, Some of these posts beg the following question: Are some people of the view given modern technology and scientific advances, as well as taking into consideration human fallibility, that if a conspiracy takes place sufficient evidence will always emerge to support it?
Do you believe it's possible for those whose jobs it is to be experts at clandestine activity, are capable of executing such activity without it becoming public knowledge, if instructed to do so.
I just get the impression, for reasons of self- identity, some people will always be loathe to acknowledge that false flags might be conducted by western governments.

With this in mind I wonder did Kennedy veto Operation Northwoods because he thought it was beyond the pale, or because he was afraid of such a plot being exposed...?

actual events on that day 100% terrorist attacks,
building 7 fell as a result of damage sustained from the other two towers falling, buildings often collapse hours after an earthquake has taken place, the collapse of the two towers having an earthquake like effect on buildings 7's foundations and internal structure, then add the fires to the equation...

was there internal knowledge of an upcoming attack by certain elements, i believe so, you only have to look at how America has acted all over the middle east since 9/11 to see why... axis of evil/war on terror/WMD's... total boll1x, now its Libya's turn

cannot seem to understand why people find the idea of false flag attacks so ludicrous, just look back at history and even the recent financial meltdown..

Eggy Baby!

IMO, it was a terror attack done with the indifference of the government; it was far too convenient to have happened the way we are told it happened. Plus, the Americans have orchestrated this kind of thing several times before in history.

alastair

niallo27 wrote: »

Why dont they just show us a video of the pentagon being hit, it has more cctv cameras than any other building in the work im led to believe. what harm could possibly be caused by showing these videos, why release an inconclusive 5 frame vid.

Because that's all they have?

I've yet to see any security video of the first WTC plane approaching the building. I'm pretty sure that there were more security cameras around the south of Manhattan than on the Pentagon. What conclusions do you expect from some missing security cam footage of the plane hitting/approaching the Pentagon?

For what it's worth - photos of the Pentagon on the day would suggest that each side of the building had 3 or four exterior cameras, but we'd have to assume that they were all individually recorded all the time, and pointed at the horizon for any plane approach to have been recorded. Given that the footage they did get (the gate footage) was recorded every 2 seconds, there's not much window of opportunity to get any sort of 'conclusive' video of an object moving 800 feet every second.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

actual events on that day 100% terrorist attacks,
building 7 fell as a result of damage sustained from the other two towers falling, buildings often collapse hours after an earthquake has taken place, the collapse of the two towers having an earthquake like effect on buildings 7's foundations and internal structure, then add the fires to the equation...

Why was building 7 so weak though, should that not be investigating, building a lot closer to the towers never fell and didn't fall for weeks afterwards, they had to be demolished. Why was building 7s the only foundations and internal structure compromised that day.

Seachmall

niallo27 wrote: »

Why was building 7 so weak though, should that not be investigating, building a lot closer to the towers never fell and didn't fall for weeks afterwards, they had to be demolished. Why was building 7s the only foundations and internal structure compromised that day.

There were 5 buildings (excluding 1 and 2). All with severe debris and fire damage. There was a good likelihood that at least one of them would collapse if not in tip-top shape. One of them did. What's the big deal?

c_man

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Typing it in bold doesn't make it more true, and the US have a track record of lying to suit their agenda, as made patently obvious with the lies about WMDs to fool the public into supporting their invasion of Iraq.

Ah yes, the same people who
- fired a missile into the Pentagon, paid off all the witnesses
- flew two planes into the towers but also spent months and months planting explosives
- shot down the other plane, even though it was part of their plan...

(modify the above as per your CT) are the same people who lied about WMDs in Iraq yet couldn't even be bothered to use half an ass to at least plant some after invasion.

I'm sure they used up all their best spooks, money and deviousness in 9/11 and had none left for Iraq...

niallo27

alastair wrote: »

Because that's all they have?

I've yet to see any security video of the first WTC plane approaching the building. I'm pretty sure that there were more security cameras around the south of Manhattan than on the Pentagon. What conclusions do you expect from some missing security cam footage of the plane hitting/approaching the Pentagon?

For what it's worth - photos of the Pentagon on the day would suggest that each side of the building had 3 or four exterior cameras, but we'd have to assume that they were all individually recorded all the time, and pointed at the horizon for any plane approach to have been recorded. Given that the footage they did get (the gate footage) was recorded every 2 seconds, there's not much window of opportunity to get any sort of 'conclusive' video of an object moving 800 feet every second.

Is there not a law suit at present to try and get the 85 tapes from that day released, i could be wrong now.

niallo27

Seachmall wrote: »

There were 5 buildings (excluding 1 and 2). All with severe debris and fire damage. There was a good likelihood that at least one of them would collapse if not in tip-top shape. One of them did. What's the big deal?

Was there not about 20 building surrounding it, WTC 7 was the furthest away and all the buildings surrounding it were fairly well intact even after WTC 7 fell itself, no big deal i just cant understand how people dont find it the slightest bit odd.