9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

cyrusdvirus

gbee wrote: »

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.

No, I REALLY don't think that you think like me.

I am of the firm opinion that WTC 7 collapsed as a result of damage from having 2 110 storey buildings collapse in its very near vicinity, and also as a result of fires that were burning in the building. To me there is nothing to hide about Building 7 coming down. Joe Pfeifer made a call to evacuate Tower 1 immediately after Tower 2 fell. If the fire crews are evacuating the surviving tower, then it stands to reason they were evacuating the complex.

gbee

gatecrash wrote: »

then it stands to reason they were evacuating the complex.

Read the fire chiefs reports posted in this thread ~ even before any tower fell they were not going near building 7.

HavingCrack

Terror attack aided albeit unwittingly by mass incompetence within the CIA and other intelligence gathering agencies. You have to remember that prior to 9/11 Islamic extremism wasn't really anywhere near the top of the agenda for any of the intelligence agencies.

cyrusdvirus

Plan View of Impact points

Map Of Damage

One of the CT arguments is that WTC7 was too far away. How then was there major damage done to WFC 2 & 3? Because 2 110 storey buildings came down, and they did not fall within their footprints.

I once saw a map that showed the approximate footprints of debris from Towers 1 & 2, and WTC 7 was slap bang in the firing line. I'll try to dig it up

cyrusdvirus

gbee wrote: »

Read the fire chiefs reports posted in this thread ~ even before any tower fell they were not going near building 7.

The building was evacuated, and they had people to save in the towers. Why would they go near it.

gbee

gatecrash wrote: »

Why would they go near it.

It was the command and control centre, among other things.

cyrusdvirus

gbee wrote: »

It was the command and control centre, among other things.

So in the middle of the biggest crisis that the city ever faced, they decide to abandon and demolish the C3 facility??? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

That makes perfect sense that does. I mean, why, on a day of spotty communications, when 2 jets have just flown into 2 landmark skyscrapers (that after less than 2 hours subsequently collapsed), and god only knows what else is around the corner, why would you want to use a secret bomb bunker with Command, Control and Communication facilities (in a 47 storey building, not below ground like every bunker everywhere else) when you can use a corner shop. It's all perfectly clear to me now.

How many beers have you had? And what percentage are they? And are they chilled? and are you willing to share? the beers, I mean, not your crackpot ideas about secret bunkers, super secret demolitions, and whatever else you are going to come out with.

Slozer

Who had the most to gain from this atrocity?

Neo Cons?
Osama Bin Laden?
Sadam Hussain?
Israel?
Larry Silverstein?
Halliburton?

Examine each one and question the motives, you will be closer to the truth than just listening to what the main stream media pump into your head.

Stev_o

Slozer wrote: »

Who had the most to gain from this atrocity?

Neo Cons?
Osama Bin Laden?
Sadam Hussain?
Israel?
Larry Silverstein?
Halliburton?

Examine each one and question the motives, you will be closer to the truth than just listening to what the main stream media pump into your head.

I take it you believe WW2 was America's doing based on the above logic then.

alastair

Slozer wrote: »

Who had the most to gain from this atrocity?

Neo Cons?
Osama Bin Laden?
Sadam Hussain?
Israel?
Larry Silverstein?
Halliburton?

Examine each one and question the motives, you will be closer to the truth than just listening to what the main stream media pump into your head.

If there was ever a time for a facepalm.

Sunnyisland

BBC 3 now conspiracy roadtrip.

cyrusdvirus

realies wrote: »

BBC 3 now conspiracy roadtrip.

Jesus that Charlotte bint is a serious ignorant cun7

Meeting the engineer from the pentagon and doing that ignorant smirk.

she deserves a good slap

gbee

Stev_o wrote: »

I take it you believe WW2 was America's doing based on the above logic then.

Believe it or not, the persuasion in the US was on the side of Germany. Roosevelt wanted something to swing the opinion to the side of England and France.

Then "the most despicable act" ..... a 60 year old history story by now.

Lord TSC

I dont believe the towers were done in by the Americans.

I do think the plane that was supposidly brought down by heroic passangers was shot down to make sure it didn't hit a target. I think they knew that saying it was heroes on the plane would work on a propaganda level, rather than "We shot down and killed them all".

cyrusdvirus

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

.

I do think the plane that was supposidly brought down by heroic passangers was shot down to make sure it didn't hit a target. I think they knew that saying it was heroes on the plane would work on a propaganda level, rather than "We shot down and killed them all".

If a gun was held to my head and I was told I had to pick 1 of the bewildering array of CTs about that day, I suppose flight 93 shootdown would be the least totally off the wall

Having said that, if flight93 HAD been shot down there would be evidence. I think that jet went into a field a full throttle and in a totally airworthy condition. It was in an uncontrolled situation, but that jet was flying.

alastair

I assumed that flight 93 had been shot down, and stuck with that assumption until the reality of what a shambles the military response to the hijacking was emerged.

Anyone who listens to the air control / NORAD tapes or reads the transcripts and timeline in the esquire article is left in no doubt that there just wasn't enough competency to shoot 93 down.

marco_polo

The thing that is really confusing to me is why the US Government who were staging the whole thing would bother to aranging the hijacking of the superfluous fourth plane just so they could shoot it down. Wouldn't three have sufficed? :pac:

gbee

marco_polo wrote: »

Wouldn't three have sufficed? :pac:

One must keep in mind that this attack was a genuine terrorist attack that was guaranteed to succeed to the advantage of the US Government's goals.

There would have been genuine terrorists and the black ops program running simultaneously, if may in fact turn out that the genuine terrorists were even more successful than they were expected to be.

Then it was time to fight back, stop this and retake control.

Pearl Harbour: the attack was known, the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet was known and the US Pacific carriers were sent out of Pearl to the North without their battle group *** not military practice ****

But the "despicable act" was almost foiled by alerts from radar and the sinking of a Jap mini sub *** in an extraordinary feat of manual gunnery *** both of whose reports were countermanded by superior officers.

And wasn't that a lovely touch that a warning of the imminent attack actually was not delivered?

As a footnote, this was a strategy, and war games have subsequently demonstrated that if the Pacific Fleet had engaged the Japanese at that point the US fleet was under powered, under gunned and under strength.

Everybody in the US might be speaking Japanese today. But at the time it was a false flag operation as the American believed they could have defeated the Japanese strike force and the Japanese themselves certainly believed that ~ the US beat the Japanese eventually with three lucky bombs ~ it was that close.

You know there is dispute over how much damage was done at Pearl. The Japanese were surprised at how successful their attack was and they cancelled the final assault, their own reports say they missed their targets but explosions were going off all around.

As it turns out there was no need to sabotage any American ship in the harbour as the attack was more than intelligence had anticipated.

As a matter of interest, the first casualties that day were Japanese, again the ordinary bobby on the street doing his duty, the false flag op almost failed at Pearl.

Thor

I do believe even if it was an inside job(Which i think it was) The people responsible are still considered terroists, They are either international or domestic terroists.

I just keep coming to back to a different idea altogehter.

If i wanted to take down a building, I wouldn't crash into the top of it, I would head for the bottom, Which would also stopping people from escaping, and I know that sounds bad. But for the sake of argument, Whoever crashed the plane into that building knew it was coming down either way, They did is solely for it to be explain why it came down and to give people a chance to get away.

Also don't get me started on the pentagon, WHERE IS THE ENGINE DAMAGE ON THE BUILDING!!

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Thor wrote: »

I do believe even if it was an inside job(Which i think it was) The people responsible are still considered terroists, They are either international or domestic terroists.

I just keep coming to back to a different idea altogehter.

If i wanted to take down a building, I wouldn't crash into the top of it, I would head for the bottom, Which would also stopping people from escaping, and I know that sounds bad. But for the sake of argument, Whoever crashed the plane into that building knew it was coming down either way, They did is solely for it to be explain why it came down and to give people a chance to get away.

Also don't get me started on the pentagon, WHERE IS THE ENGINE DAMAGE ON THE BUILDING!!

It would be rather difficult to fly into the bottom of the bulilding in a city full of, well full of tall buildings

teol

Thor wrote: »

If i wanted to take down a building, I wouldn't crash into the top of it, I would head for the bottom, Which would also stopping people from escaping, and I know that sounds bad. But for the sake of argument, Whoever crashed the plane into that building knew it was coming down either way, They did is solely for it to be explain why it came down and to give people a chance to get away.

LOL

cyrusdvirus

gbee wrote: »

One must keep in mind that this attack was a genuine terrorist attack that was guaranteed to succeed to the advantage of the US Government's goals.

There would have been genuine terrorists and the black ops program running simultaneously, if may in fact turn out that the genuine terrorists were even more successful than they were expected to be.

Then it was time to fight back, stop this and retake control.

Pearl Harbour: the attack was known, the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet was known and the US Pacific carriers were sent out of Pearl to the North without their battle group *** not military practice ****

But the "despicable act" was almost foiled by alerts from radar and the sinking of a Jap mini sub *** in an extraordinary feat of manual gunnery *** both of whose reports were countermanded by superior officers.

And wasn't that a lovely touch that a warning of the imminent attack actually was not delivered?

As a footnote, this was a strategy, and war games have subsequently demonstrated that if the Pacific Fleet had engaged the Japanese at that point the US fleet was under powered, under gunned and under strength.

Everybody in the US might be speaking Japanese today. But at the time it was a false flag operation as the American believed they could have defeated the Japanese strike force and the Japanese themselves certainly believed that ~ the US beat the Japanese eventually with three lucky bombs ~ it was that close.

You know there is dispute over how much damage was done at Pearl. The Japanese were surprised at how successful their attack was and they cancelled the final assault, their own reports say they missed their targets but explosions were going off all around.

As it turns out there was no need to sabotage any American ship in the harbour as the attack was more than intelligence had anticipated.

As a matter of interest, the first casualties that day were Japanese, again the ordinary bobby on the street doing his duty, the false flag op almost failed at Pearl.

Just as a matter of interest, what was the first capital ship sunk during World War 2?

Crazy Horse 6

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I dont believe the towers were done in by the Americans.

I do think the plane that was supposidly brought down by heroic passangers was shot down to make sure it didn't hit a target. I think they knew that saying it was heroes on the plane would work on a propaganda level, rather than "We shot down and killed them all".

That's how i see it iswell. That plane was shot down no doubt about it but the Americans just spun some BS hero story for the familys.

--Kaiser--

The looneys are really coming out of the woodwork for this thread

cyrusdvirus

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The looneys are really coming out of the woodwork for this thread

We're normally quite successful at keeping them locked away in the LT forum too. Sorry, CT forum.

tolosenc

JFK was shot by aliens hired from Area 51 by the US Government and the Mafia.

cyrusdvirus

tolosenc wrote: »

JFK was shot by aliens hired from Area 51 by the US Government and the Mafia.

At least that's what the establishment WANT you to believe.

I have a theory that proves differently.

spider guardian

gatecrash wrote: »

At least that's what the establishment WANT you to believe.

I have a theory that proves differently.

JFK was shot by a group of out-of-work documentary makers. Discussion finished.

cyrusdvirus

spider guardian wrote: »

JFK was shot by a group of out-of-work documentary makers. Discussion finished.

Nope.

He was killed by a bunch of high speed kamikaze killer bees

spider guardian

gatecrash wrote: »

Nope.

He was killed by a bunch of high speed kamikaze killer bees

Ever play Metal Gear Solid 3? There's a boss in that game that fires killer bees at you. Was he based on a real-life character then?