9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

JonathanAnon

Personally, I have a lot of questions about 9/11... But the two main ones would be..

1. WTF happened to Building 7 ... the 9/11 Commission said the hypothesis of it having been brought down by the fires has a low probability of being the actual cause.. Yet they did not probe this further.. If we are continuing to build stuff with steel, then we need answers..
2. What hit the Pentagon ... The hole simply doesnt look big enough to be a 757 hit.. Also the story of Hani Hanjour expertly piloting the plane isnt believable.. Release all the footage from the Pentagon cameras, SitGo garage, hotel etc etc showing the plane and I will be happy enough.

People should be allowed to ask these questions without being labelled nutjobs.. Unfortunately high profile people like Jim Corr, who regurgitate documentaries like Loose Change verbatim on the national airwaves, do damage to anybody who has reasonable questions..

Liam Byrne

gbee wrote: »

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.

Was that not the reason they got rid of Bush ?

marco_polo

BlackBlade wrote: »

Em no!
they dont run under the foot path like!
there was a whole train station etc under there so why would falling debris burst a pipe that could potentially be covered by multiple stories?
pardon the pun but that doesnt hold any water!:rolleyes:

2 guys could have done that over a couple of weeks you wouldnt need hundreds, a couple of special forces guys could easy go along internal channels in such a vast building without ever being noticed!

Lol, under the pavement is precisely where street level water mains are located, they would not be very easy to repair if you had to dig up subway lines to get to the now now would they

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/08/13/hundreds-will-be-without-water-and-gas-for-days-in-washington-heights/

If can give me a plausible explaination as to how the basements of Manhattan buildings tend to get flooded during a water main burst if they are "multiple stories" underground that would be swell.

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/08/07/water-main-break-at-key-nyc-telecom-hub/

gbee

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Was that not the reason they got rid of Bush ?

hmmmm ... ever think why an unknown Obama gets elected after him? Heeee Haaaa, W is rolling around the floor laughing at this one

enfant terrible

alastair wrote: »

In fairness - drink driving is pretty much ignored across the board in US law enforcement. Jim McDaid could rest easy there.

Drink driving and manslaughter ask Ted Kennedy.

04KY

JonathanAnon wrote: »

1. WTF happened to Building 7 ... the 9/11 Commission said the hypothesis of it having been brought down by the fires has a low probability of being the actual cause.. Yet they did not probe this further.. If we are continuing to build stuff with steel, then we need answers..
2. What hit the Pentagon ... The hole simply doesnt look big enough to be a 757 hit.. Also the story of Hani Hanjour expertly piloting the plane isnt believable.. Release all the footage from the Pentagon cameras, SitGo garage, hotel etc etc showing the plane and I will be happy enough.

1. I'm not too sure. But I think a poster earlier linked to the Commission revised their reasoning and increasing the probability of the fire being the cause. I think the fire was left to burn for 7 hours unattended and no sprinkler system in working order.

2. The hole in the Pentagon is big enough. The hole was about 75ft wide. The wings of the plane were sheared off on impact. They wouldn't have been heavy enough to punch a hole in the building.

enfant terrible

speedboatchase wrote: »

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.

Don't forget the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.

That time it was Clinton trying to knock them down.

What's with these presidents trying to knock these buildings over.

nullzero

The truth about 9-11 will probably never be fully known.
The official story leaves lots of holes that can be plugged by theories that vary in their plausability.

It's funny how many people will defened to the death the official story even though there are holes in it and refer to anyone who questions it as "moronic" to quote one early poster in this thread.

No one knows if it was part of a conspiracy being played out by our reptilian overlords or just a consequence of gross negligence on the part of the US government/intelligence agencies. It is good to question these things, jumping to conclusions on either end of the spectrum is what is truly moronic.

kev9100

I know its only an AH poll, but the significant amount of people who think it was an inside job or at least partilly is very depressing.

Liam Byrne

kev9100 wrote: »

I know its only an AH poll, but the significant amount of people who think it was an inside job or at least partilly is very depressing.

It's probably more indicative of a severe distrust of America because of all of the other lies their administration told.

On this one they may well be the boy who cried wolf, but if the local drug-dealer or FF member told you it was sunny out, you'd bring an umbrella.

Sam Vimes

BlackBlade wrote: »

it was still made to withstand that amount of fire:rolleyes:

But not coupled with being hit by large chunks of two other buildings (damaging all that brilliant anti-collapse design) and then being left to burn for 8 hours with no sprinkler system and no attempt being made to put it out. One would assume that a functioning sprinkler system would play a crucial role in the design of any building meant to withstand fire

BlackBlade wrote: »

amazing how the buildings feeding the water to the towers collapsed isnt it!
considering they were supposedly brought down from the top down but yet 2 buildngs at the base that feed the water to it went first.
and still you think there is nothing sussy about the whole thing?

are you listening to yourself????

Yeah it is amazing isn't it! Chunks fell from the top of the building. Some of them hit building 7 and made it catch fire and some of them hit the water main. Nothing suspicious there tbh. You're clutching at straws mate

tolosenc

JonathanAnon wrote: »

2. What hit the Pentagon ... The hole simply doesnt look big enough to be a 757 hit.. Also the story of Hani Hanjour expertly piloting the plane isnt believable.. Release all the footage from the Pentagon cameras, SitGo garage, hotel etc etc showing the plane and I will be happy enough.

The picture they show and use to justify the claim that a 757 didn't hit the building shows where the landing gear smashed through the wall. The plane did not go through the wall at that point. If you have a wider shot, you'd see that most of the building is missing only feet from that hole

dfx-

I do think WTC7 was probably 'helped on its way', but one side of that building would've been demolished from debris so it wouldn't have taken much or that long to help it go. I don't see it falling the way it did if it was unaided. Not really a pre-planned conspiracy.

It may have been mentioned at some point in this thread, but has it ever been clarified what the strange appearance of the underside of Flight 175 actually was?

cyrusdvirus

dfx- wrote: »

It may have been mentioned at some point in this thread, but has it ever been clarified what the strange appearance of the underside of Flight 175 actually was?

What?? Strange appearance??

IT-Guy

dfx- wrote: »

I do think WTC7 was probably 'helped on its way', but one side of that building would've been demolished from debris so it wouldn't have taken much or that long to help it go. I don't see it falling the way it did if it was unaided. Not really a pre-planned conspiracy.

It may have been mentioned at some point in this thread, but has it ever been clarified what the strange appearance of the underside of Flight 175 actually was?

@dfx - those "bumps" are nothing more than shadows that appear solid in nature due to the angle of the plane and the resolution of the photos. I've no doubt the planes that hit the towers were the actual flights 11 and 175. The site you link to in your post maintains the presence of two "tubes" and other appendages on the plane mean the flight wasn't the original flight 175. At the risk of sounding rude - absolute horses**te. All I see are naturally occurring shapes from sunlight and shadow, no pods or appendages on the underside, just the brain interpreting light and dark areas as unusual shapes. Standard enough behavior of the brain blown out of proportion due to the events of the day. Have a look at this photo of a 767 - 222 from behind. Notice due to the plane banking and the photo being taken from an angle, the center bulge for the landing gear appears to stick out to one side. Put that same area in a dark shadow in a lower res photo and that to me explains any unusual bulges in the rather poor quality photos we have of the underside of flight 175.

@BlackBlade - step away from the internet, get out of your room, take a walk around and you'll see that life is beautiful and straight forward (despite the recession!). There is however a small minority of people determined to ruin that for the majority. I call them terrorists, al qaeda (or whatever term you want to call this loose affiliation of scumbags) whereas you call them the american government. I call you on that and say you are wrong - deluded in fact - if you think this was planned or assisted by, in any way, the american gov.

The reason the twin towers collapsed were due to the weakening of the steel due to heat from the fires occurring on a number of floors. Bear in mind the floors were approximately an acre each, roughly 4000 sq metres of offices and furnishings ablaze would generate enough heat to weaken steel to the point of failure. There was no thermite, no bombs planted and no conspiracy to murder thousands of innocent people (except on the part of the terrorists). A little bit of critical thinking and familiarity with the design of the twin towers explains why they fell. In all the pages and pages of truther sites I've read, not one has satisfactorily explained why in both towers did the collapse occur in the areas hit by the planes and not from the ground up as you would expect if they were taken down in a demolition, controlled or otherwise? Where are the flashes and bangs as the charges go off? Check out this vid for a controlled demolition and look at the way it falls. Compare it to the way the twin towers fall...

cyrusdvirus

kev9100 wrote: »

I know its only an AH poll, but the significant amount of people who think it was an inside job or at least partilly is very depressing.

I think that's about the most terrifying thing about this thread.

nacho libre

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I
Having an inside job involve plane hijacking and kamakazee attacks is such a ridiculous idea that it is worthy of a South Park episode... well actaully... :D:D

Perhaps the South Park creators get their inspiration from the US Military

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

RichieC

dfx- wrote: »

I do think WTC7 was probably 'helped on its way', but one side of that building would've been demolished from debris so it wouldn't have taken much or that long to help it go. I don't see it falling the way it did if it was unaided. Not really a pre-planned conspiracy.

It may have been mentioned at some point in this thread, but has it ever been clarified what the strange appearance of the underside of Flight 175 actually was?

Building 7 was brought down by the yanks to destroy evidence of corporate corruption. the securities and exchange commission was in there.. laughably so was the mayors emergency command and control center......

nacho libre

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

It is convenient it only happened a year into Bush's presidency? How so? Wouldn't it have been more concenient 3 years into his presidency, thus guaranteeing him re-election?

It is convenient that it led to the invasion of Iraq - so if it was an inside job, where the 'terrorists' were ficticious or selected by the government, they deliberately (bear with me) decided to represent it as an Al Qaeda terrorist attack carried out by Saudi and Egyptian members and facilitated by the Afghan taliban?

Seeing that if it was an insdie job, with all details in relation to it being orchestrated by the American government, I would have thought the fact that (as you point out) there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq (apart from Saddam's public celibrations) would have been at the very least a huge oversight on the part of the US government?

I'll let you fill in those holes for now.

There is just one oversight in your post. We've seen over the years how intelligence agencies have been guilty of having foreknowledge of terrorist activity and not preventing it.

RichieC

nacho libre wrote: »

Perhaps the South Park creators get their inspiration from the US Military

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

I love this document.. it destroys out of hand the argument that the US gov would never think of doing such a thing..

IT-Guy

nacho libre wrote: »

There is just one oversight in your post. We've seen over the years how intelligence agencies have been guilty of having foreknowledge of terrorist activity and not preventing it.

Can you cite some examples please? I'd love to read up on them, if they exist!

RichieC

IT-Guy wrote: »

Can you cite some examples please? I'd love to read up on them, if they exist!

Pearl Harbour.though that wasn't a terrorist attack..

IT-Guy

RichieC wrote: »

I love this document.. it destroys out of hand the argument that the US gov would never think of doing such a thing..

I love when CTers bring this up, as if a document almost 50 years old, drafted during the cold war amid heightened tensions with Cuba bears any relevance to events today. From the wiki page you linked to: "Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, and it would now be the Joint Chiefs' turn to incur his displeasure....Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff". How that comes across as the american government approving or condoning the plan is beyond me? They removed the numpty who came up with the stupid idea!

cowzerp

I don't know why people think the towers falling down is so explainable-When it was hit it was fairly high up and the structure did not look to badly damaged, i thought it looked like a controlled building explosion at the time and would have expected at least a fair few floors to still be standing if it was due to the impact way up.

It all came down from bottom up instead of the top falling and rest following, Thats how it looked to me-conspiracy? ya never know when people have money to gain.

IT-Guy

RichieC wrote: »

Pearl Harbour.though that wasn't a terrorist attack..

Ah ok, Roosevelt had foreknowledge the japanese were going to attack and left it happen so as to drag america and it's reluctant public into WWII. Just one of those convenient theories that seem to fit the facts. IIRC, the conspiracy theory arose because all the carriers were out to sea on exercises, as if it had been done deliberately to get them out of Pearl Harbor. Read this part of the wiki on the advance knowledge conspiracy theory. Especially the part about what ships were considered more important or capital ships in WWII. Hint: carriers weren't, battleships were...

rich1874

nacho libre wrote: »

There is just one oversight in your post. We've seen over the years how intelligence agencies have been guilty of having foreknowledge of terrorist activity and not preventing it.

I think there's a huge difference between having knowledge that something may happen in terms of a terrorist attack, and then actively being involved in the attack itself. So that's a poor argument. There's dozens of warnings everyday around the world that a strike may occur and many times nothing happens.

If you study science, or just have general common sense, you will find that in any event, even simple controlled lab experiments, there is always unexplained phenomena at the conclusion. So to attempt to fill in the holes of the 'strange' occurences on 911 with talk of conspiracy is simply non sensical and illogical. If you read the reports, follow the methods carried out by investigatory teams and study the conclusions, you'll find the simplest explantation is usually the winner. Conspiracy theories are cool to think about but really they're just mostly hollywood fantasies.

The sheer scale of what would have to happen in order for the american government to keep this queit would just be too much. Tens of thousands of people would have to be involved. It just wouldn't be worth it, i don't remember the USA ever needing an excuse to illegally invade countries so even the justification for a supposed 'inside job' looks a little thin.

IT-Guy

cowzerp wrote: »

I don't know why people think the towers falling down is so explainable-When it was hit it was fairly high up and the structure did not look to badly damaged, i thought it looked like a controlled building explosion at the time and would have expected at least a fair few floors to still be standing if it was due to the impact way up.

It all came down from bottom up instead of the top falling and rest following, Thats how it looked to me-conspiracy? ya never know when people have money to gain.

Have a read through post #408, clearly the towers fell from the top down. The first part to collapse in both towers was the section above where the planes hit. But let me guess, the NWO knew what floors the hijackers were gonna crash into and had already planted explosives

Have a look at the video I linked to in my post, it's a controlled demolition and the building falls from the ground floor up. Now look at clips of the twin towers falling - they both fall from the top down, the sections above where the planes hit collapse onto the rest of the building. No conspiracy, no demolition and the only people responsible are the suicidal maniacs who flew the airliners into them. My €0.02.

ScumLord

cowzerp wrote: »

I don't know why people think the towers falling down is so explainable-When it was hit it was fairly high up and the structure did not look to badly damaged, i thought it looked like a controlled building explosion at the time and would have expected at least a fair few floors to still be standing if it was due to the impact way up.

It all came down from bottom up instead of the top falling and rest following, Thats how it looked to me-conspiracy? ya never know when people have money to gain.

Are you by any chance talking about a different building because the damage after the planes with the WTC was obviously extensive across multiple floors and damaged both sides of the building meaning entire floors where destroyed in the initial explosion.

It was also very clear the top of the buildings collapsed onto the rest of the building it didn't come from the bottom up that's just a bizarre thing to say.

cowzerp

ScumLord wrote: »

Are you by any chance talking about a different building because the damage after the planes with the WTC was obviously extensive across multiple floors and damaged both sides of the building meaning entire floors where destroyed in the initial explosion.

It was also very clear the top of the buildings collapsed onto the rest of the building it didn't come from the bottom up that's just a bizarre thing to say.

I may be just mixing it up, im not going by just seen it-im going by what i thought at the time when i seen it on sky-it just fell to smoothly and the fact all it went does not make sense to me-if half collapsed then it would not have me thinking it was odd.

nacho libre

rich1874 wrote: »

I think there's a huge difference between having knowledge that something may happen in terms of a terrorist attack, and then actively being involved in the attack itself. So that's a poor argument. .

I agree there are instances where warning are given and unfortunately nothing can be done, but we've seen in Northern Ireland where terrorist activity could have been prevented and deliberately wasn't.
So i don't see how it is a poor argument.