9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

--Kaiser--

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.

Obviously you have some sort of qualification in engineering to make this statement? Or are you merely talking out of your ill-informed and uneducated ass?

smash

Not going to bother reading the whole thread and it's probably been mentioned a lot, but there is no way in hell that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.

--Kaiser--

smash wrote: »

Not going to bother reading the whole thread and it's probably been mentioned a lot, but there is no way in hell that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.

Oh, you must have witnessed this event to make such a claim. Or else must have been part of the investigation afterwards. Must have been traumatic, huh?

cowzerp

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Obviously you have some sort of qualification in engineering to make this statement? Or are you merely talking out of your ill-informed and uneducated ass?

I am just saying an opinion you ignoramous

I don't have strong feelings anyway on the subject and am just saying i thought it looked odd-and my lack of Engineering qualifications leaves it as just a random observation that can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Never knew we needed qualifications to post on After hours-apologies.

ScumLord

cowzerp wrote: »

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.

It may have looked smooth on Tv from a distance but the fact is once you have a critical failure in a shell building or any structure the whole lot is doomed. Once the top floors started moving there was absolutely nothing that could stop them, it's just the nature of a vertical building like that, we're used to seeing horizontally long buildings where a problem at one end may not affect the other end.

nacho libre

IT-Guy wrote: »

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!

The question is why did Kennedy veto it? Was it, as i asked previously, he thought it was beyond the pale or because he didn't think it would work?
I do suspect it was the former. However, i posted this example to demonstrate that such activity was contemplated in reply to the poster that said such an idea could never have been conceived in the first place? Skepticism based purely on scientific enquiry of events like 9-11 is sound. What I find it hard to fathom is why people are still implacably opposed to the idea that western intelligence agencies are capable of nefarious activity and prepared to carry it out if they can get away with it.

--Kaiser--

cowzerp wrote: »

I am just saying an opinion you ignoramous

I don't have strong feelings anyway on the subject and am just saying i thought it looked odd-and my lack of Engineering qualifications leaves it as just a random observation that can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Never knew we needed qualifications to post on After hours-apologies.

I don't need a qualification to see that both towers collapsed from the point of impact downward and not bottom up like a controlled demolition.

smash

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Oh, you must have witnessed this event to make such a claim. Or else must have been part of the investigation afterwards. Must have been traumatic, huh?

Touch a nerve? Look at any of the videos or photos... Actually you can't look at any videos because they were all confiscated and the only video available is the jittery video from the lawn of the pentagon where you can't see a plane at all.

dfx-

IT-Guy wrote: »

@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.

Perhaps I should say that I don't disagree, it was a genuine question..

I think the stripe that appears on a United Airlines 767 of the time explains it away myself..

nacho libre

[QUOTE=rich1874;74281808
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.[/QUOTE]

The US has come up with plenty of excuses over the years to conduct military action against other countries. You need a pretext to convince people into supporting war. Most people don't like the idea of War.
Taking this into consideration, I doubt the Iraq war would have gotten the support of the majority of Americans, if the Bush administration had come clean on the real reasons for the invasion.
Although I agree with your other point, if the US Government were directly involved in 9-11, where would the killing end, in order to keep a lid on the conspiracy.

--Kaiser--

smash wrote: »

Touch a nerve? Look at any of the videos or photos... Actually you can't look at any videos because they were all confiscated and the only video available is the jittery video from the lawn of the pentagon where you can't see a plane at all.

....and what about all the eye-witnesses to the event? Something you're not yet you can be sure that a plane didn't hit it? That bullshit theory has been debunked a long time ago

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

IT-Guy

nacho libre wrote: »

The question is why did Kennedy veto it? Was it, as i asked previously, he thought it was beyond the pale or because he didn't think it would work?
I do suspect it was the former. However, i posted this example to demonstrate that such activity was contemplated in reply to the poster that said such an idea could never have been conceived in the first place? Skepticism based purely based on scientific enquiry of events like 9-11 is sound. What I find it hard to fathom is why people are still implacably opposed to the idea that western intelligence agencies are capable of nefarious activity and prepared to carry it out if they can get away with it.

I don't doubt their ability to carry out nefarious activities, I just don't believe those activities extend to either allowing or participating in the hijacking of airliners and crashing them into buildings and subsequently demolishing 2 of them. What's real to me is there are nutjobs willing to kill themselves for some obscure ideology and are willing to take as many people as they can with them. I don't believe the west has agencies or people in the military with similar views.

IT-Guy

dfx- wrote: »

Perhaps I should say that I don't disagree, it was a genuine question..

I think the stripe that appears on a United Airlines 767 of the time explains it away myself..

Apologies, I had you tagged as a CTer That paint scheme would explain quite a lot of the reflections along the fuselage of flight 175 that are being interpreted as tubes and other things.

@ smash - I think the reason footage hasn't been released of the plane hitting the pentagon is out of respect to the families. A similar respect couldn't be extended to the families of the passengers onboard flights 11 and 175 due to the very public nature of both crashes. Why people want to see yet another plane hitting a building is beyond me, must be a disaster porn fetish I don't get

smash

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

....and what about all the eye-witnesses to the event? Something you're not yet you can be sure that a plane didn't hit it? That bullshit theory has been debunked a long time ago

There's as many witnesses to say they saw no plane. There's interviews with a lot of people saying "I saw the plane" yet they were all construction workers or pentagon staff. There were motorists and local business owners who reported never hearing a plane or seeing one. Just a big bang and a fireball. All security tapes from local security cameras were also confiscated and never released. Same with the black box info. And all the photos show no signs of a plane, but then afterwards there were new images release showing plane parts that weren't on the aerial images etc. Either way it's just a conspiracy, no need for you to get so upset about it.

--Kaiser--

smash wrote: »

There's as many witnesses to say they saw no plane. There's interviews with a lot of people saying "I saw the plane" yet they were all construction workers or pentagon staff. There were motorists and local business owners who reported never hearing a plane or seeing one. Just a big bang and a fireball. All security tapes from local security cameras were also confiscated and never released. Same with the black box info. And all the photos show no signs of a plane, but then afterwards there were new images release showing plane parts that weren't on the aerial images etc. Either way it's just a conspiracy, no need for you to get so upset about it.

Simply not true, but then again, what has truth got to do with conspiracy theories?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

And I'm not upset, frankly I pity people who believe ridiculous ideas no little or no proof, with masses of evidence to the contrary

dfx-

I do think a plane hit the Pentagon, but they're not helping themselves quash that particular one by confiscating the security tapes.

nacho libre

IT-Guy wrote: »

I don't doubt their ability to carry out nefarious activities, I just don't believe those activities extend to either allowing or participating in the hijacking of airliners and crashing them into buildings and subsequently demolishing 2 of them. What's real to me is there are nutjobs willing to kill themselves for some obscure ideology and are willing to take as many people as they can with them. I don't believe the west has agencies or people in the military with similar views.

I agree there are plenty of disturbed people willing to kill based on their extremist religuous beliefs.
Where i would disagree with you is, that there aren't disturbed secularist right-wing ideologues in the west prepared to see masses of people killed in order to further their own ideology and geo-political aims. Have you read any of the PNAC document that was penned by the neo- conservatives that had access to the Bush Administration? Some of the actions advocated by those people are reprehensible.

The official history of the CIA(Family Jewels), shows there were plenty of psychopaths in that organisation down through the years. Operation Northwoods being an example of this
Then there is people like Negropointe who ran death squads in central America to advance his administrations objectives.

alastair

smash wrote: »

There's as many witnesses to say they saw no plane. There's interviews with a lot of people saying "I saw the plane" yet they were all construction workers or pentagon staff. There were motorists and local business owners who reported never hearing a plane or seeing one. Just a big bang and a fireball. All security tapes from local security cameras were also confiscated and never released. Same with the black box info. And all the photos show no signs of a plane, but then afterwards there were new images release showing plane parts that weren't on the aerial images etc. Either way it's just a conspiracy, no need for you to get so upset about it.

Pretty much wrong from top to bottom.

The number of unambigious witness reports of seeing a commercial passnger jet approaching and hitting the pentagon are multiples of those few who weren't sure what kind of plane they saw. That some people didn't hear the plane until the impact isn't that strange - the distance between the road and the impact location is small, and the plane was covering 800 metres a second.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

The cctv tapes were indeed confiscated by the FBI - but the majority of them have been released through FOI requests. There's an outstanding request for the footage from the wall cameras on the Navy annex, but that's about it - none showed any plane - and there's nothing to suggest that the outstanding cameras were pointed at the flightpath, or were recording at the time.

Dunno what aerial images you're referring to that don't tally with the debris on the ground, but given that there are well known photos of people moving plane debris from the grass following the impact, it's not hard to believe that the debris remained undisturbed in the hours following the impact.

paddyandy

The Mass Media has a hand here .....they don't miss a market opportunity.

smash

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And I'm not upset, frankly I pity people who believe ridiculous ideas no little or no proof, with masses of evidence to the contrary

Have a bit of imagination. I'm not a fanatical conspiracy theorist but I like to have a read of them. The reason I'm sceptical about the pentagon attack is because the video evidence that should be present just isn't there or is being held back.

--Kaiser--

smash wrote: »

Have a bit of imagination. I'm not a fanatical conspiracy theorist but I like to have a read of them. The reason I'm sceptical about the pentagon attack is because the video evidence that should be present just isn't there or is being held back.

Backpedal much? Only a few hours ago you stated 'there's no way in hell a plane hit the Pentagon', now you're merely sceptical?

What has imagination got to do with it? It's not a fairy tale, this actually happened. Plenty of witnesses, plenty of people who know what went on and how it went on.....and then a whole other pile of people who weren't there, who don't know what they're talking about and who chose to reject all rational explanations in favour of fanciful, ludicrous and unproven (nay, unprovable) nonsense

gbee

smash wrote: »

There's as many witnesses to say they saw no plane.

Most of the early interviews say it was a bomb, most don't mention another plane, even a live report mentions a bomb and there is no plane in the video.

Later there is ~ like magic the same footage but released at teas time magically has the plane in the frame from bother right and them the left of the North tower before impact.

WTC-7 was the mayor's bomb proof bunker ~ designed to be used as a command centre if the city was under attack. Well we know that plan did not work. A bomb proof bunker ~ jeez it must have been very badly made?

We decided to 'Pull' WTC-7, so we pulled it, later I meant that we'd pull the fire fighters out who were bravely rescuing people in building 7.

We know from reports that building 7 was not entered and it had to be let go.

The mayor also told reporters that the towers were coming down???

Ah we could go on and on. I'm going to open a beer, this will be a long night.

cyrusdvirus

gbee wrote: »

Most of the early interviews say it was a bomb, most don't mention another plane, even a live report mentions a bomb and there is no plane in the video.

Later there is ~ like magic the same footage but released at teas time magically has the plane in the frame from bother right and them the left of the North tower before impact.

WTC-7 was the mayor's bomb proof bunker ~ designed to be used as a command centre if the city was under attack. Well we know that plan did not work. A bomb proof bunker ~ jeez it must have been very badly made?

We decided to 'Pull' WTC-7, so we pulled it, later I meant that we'd pull the fire fighters out who were bravely rescuing people in building 7.

We know from reports that building 7 was not entered and it had to be let go.

The mayor also told reporters that the towers were coming down???

Ah we could go on and on. I'm going to open a beer, this will be a long night.

Wait.. What??

Smash is talking about the Pentagon, and you are mentioning the North Tower. Which target are you referring to when you say bomb?

And while we're at it, how many Bomb Proof Bunkers do you know about THAT ARE 47 STORIES TALL? And I mean above ground tall???

Now, I'm no tin pot dictator, or the mayor of a major city, but i do have a bit of interest in things painted green, with shooty bits. And even i know that if you are going to have a bunker, it's usually a smart move to put it BELOW ground.

But that's just me.

alastair

gbee wrote: »

Ah we could go on and on.

With the deluded nonsense? Ten years of repeated debunking hasn't stopped the tinfoil antics, so, yes - I supposed you will go on and on.

For what it's worth - there are scores of images of the planes hitting both wtc towers. It's the most delusional of CT loolahs who subscribe to the 'no-plane theory'. Well done on that.

gbee

gatecrash wrote: »

But that's just me.

Look at the videos, it's all there, and I'd think like you do too ~ WTC-7 was apparently damaged even before the towers came down, otherwise the Mayor would have been making for his bunker ~ he bunkered down instead in an empty fire station.

He says a lot surrounded by reporters and TV on that morning.

spider guardian

IvaBigWun wrote: »

To "pull" a building in construction speak is to demolish it

Wrong

gbee

spider guardian wrote: »

Wrong

Pedantic

spider guardian

gbee wrote: »

Pedantic

Not in the least. 'Pull it' does not mean 'demolish the building', and the man who said it did not not intend it either. There are perfectly good reasons why Tower 7 collapsed, not least having two 110-story buildings collapse in its vicinity. Is it really so hard to believe a building can collapse during such an event? Why do people choose to believe such absurd theories instead? Why?!

This thread is laughable and full of facepalmery. Send it to the Conspiracy Theory forum where it belongs

wiger toods

31 pages, just couldnt stop reading when i started! great debate! time for a cupa tae now though!

gbee

spider guardian wrote: »

Not in the least. 'Pull it' does not mean 'demolish the building',

Yes it does. Admittedly, not exactly and precisely, it's a legacy term, not unlike someone saying he was travelling at 40 miles an hour when he meant 40 kilometres an hour.

The end result is the same, a building on the ground ~