9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

10 years on people are bound to come up with arguments that it was an inside job, especially since no one is arguing on the other side.

Conor108

When I read "elements of both" in the poll, I thought of this

x in the city

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Been asked a thousand times but never seen a poll for it in AH so the question remains:

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

george w bush controlled them two planes by RC .

Is this not common knowledge...

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

What would he know???????

He was also involved in a big court battle about semantics at that time.

The buildings were insured for 3.5billion each if any event made the towers collapse,

So 2 buildings collapsed by 2 planes striking them, 2 events, so the payout should have been 7 billion.

But no he lost, 9/11 was ruled as one event so the payout was 3,5 billion, so he is probably making it sound like it really was 2 events, a plane hitting the buildings and a demolition.

Believe me the insurance companies would not pay a red cent if they thought they could prove it was government a demolition. Obviously they couldn't

He was talking about WTC 7, not the Twin Towers. He asked for the building WTC 7 to be "pulled", i.e. demolished

4leto

IvaBigWun wrote: »

He was talking about WTC 7, not the Twin Towers. He asked for the building WTC 7 to be "pulled", i.e. demolished

So you are saying he had set the explosives and planned a mass murder of emergency staff for 9/11 and nobody noticed a company setting demolition charges months before hand?

You have to admit that that is a stretch of the imagination.

IvaBigWun

Another amazing fúck up caught on camera

teol

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Please, please, please never use Loose Change to argue the point of a 9/11 conspiracy. It's one of the factually most inaccurate documentaries ever made.

A terrible film

Yes, it's amazing the amount of dumb people out there who believed that crap. If you want to find out how WTC7 collapsed read the report. Don't take the word a couple of uneducated propagandists.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

And the report investigates and disproves the conspiracy theories.

Cathaoirleach

All you have to ask is who gained from 9/11

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25762

niallo27

Did the us goverment spend more investigating clintons sex scandal than on the investigation into 9/11, I think that's true, they didn't seem to care whose fault it was and how it could have being stoped.

4leto

My god Donald Rumsfeld has slips of the tongues

**NOWAY**

He is known for worse then that slip. He was as bad as Bush.

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

So you are saying he had set the explosives and planned a mass murder of emergency staff for 9/11 and nobody noticed a company setting demolition charges months before hand?

You have to admit that that is a stretch of the imagination.

Silverstein insured the buildings for billions just months before 9/11, doesnt that strike you as a bit off?

When billions are involved it would be very easy to get government Black Ops to set charges. Hell when there's billions involved it would be easy to get a demolition company to do that and keep quiet about it

niallo27

4leto wrote: »

So you are saying he had set the explosives and planned a mass murder of emergency staff for 9/11 and nobody noticed a company setting demolition charges months before hand?

You have to admit that that is a stretch of the imagination.

I'm not saying there was charges in the building or any of that but if someone powerful enough wanted to place charges in there I'm sure they could have had.

tfitzgerald

I think itwas a terror attack but that there was a cover up afterwards by the bush administration of the Saudi involvement

Ally Dick

It was a terror attack. I don't believe it was an inside job. There would have been far too many people involved in the organising of it if it was an inside job, and surely one of them would have blabbed within ten years if that was the case ? Nah, I think it was a terror attack, but that it suited the Bush administration for it to happen as it galvanised the pre-text for an Iraqi invasion

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

My god Donald Rumsfeld has slips of the tongues

**NOWAY**

He is known for worse then that slip. He was as bad as Bush.

No. They're both liars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyJXdS2fVZ0

sunflower27

Documentary on 9/11 conspiracy theories starting on National Geographic channel now if anyone is interested

4leto

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Silverstein insured the buildings for billions just months before 9/11, doesnt that strike you as a bit off?

When billions are involved it would be very easy to get government Black Ops to set charges. Hell when there's billions involved it would be easy to get a demolition company to do that and keep quiet about it

No it wouldn't and black ops wouldn't have a clue how to make a controlled building collapse it is highly specialised work with highly qualified engineers involved.

Black ops could blow it up and that is about all.

And again he lost the insurance case he only got half the value of the claim.

AudreyHepburn

A terrorist attack imo.

Folks are a group of fanatical extremists flying planes into buildings and murdering thousands not bad enough as it is? Why do people insist on trying to make it seem even worse? Is the offical line not horrific enough?

IvaBigWun

teol wrote: »

Yes, it's amazing the amount of dumb people out there who believed that crap. If you want to find out how WTC7 collapsed read the report. Don't take the word a couple of uneducated propagandists.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

And the report investigates and disproves the conspiracy theories.

I stopped reading at ".gov"

Keano!

Inside job.... easy for me to just say that, but i honestle feel its the truth.

watched a lot of stuff on it in the last two years and i'm convinced. oil and clearing debts the motives.


anyway....

...each to their own i suppose

teol

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm not saying there was charges in the building or any of that but if someone powerful enough wanted to place charges in there I'm sure they could have had.

Nixon couldn't even keep Watergate under wraps. The senior fire officers going into WTC7 would have had structural engineering qualifications. Demolishing a building with explosives cannot be hidden.

teol

IvaBigWun wrote: »

I stopped reading at ".gov"

Go to university. Study engineering and disprove it then.

G-Money

Turn on National Geographic now. It's talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

jive

God take it to the Conspiracy Theories forum with all the other paranoid pseudo-intellectual nuts. Let me ask you something... if it was an inside job then... WHO WAS PLANE?? HUH?? WHO WAS PLANE??

But seriously if it was an inside job they would have to get people to fly a plane into a building. Not just one plane but 4 if my memory serves me correctly. Also it takes more than 1 person to hijack a plane, surely a minimum of 2 people per plane and that's a MINIMUM. So 2 people per plane x 4 planes = 8 people. They managed to get 8 people to do that without anyone else finding out, without any information about this leaking out and without any of these people telling their families/friends?

OK. But hey, all us conspiracy theorists are qualified engineers and demolition experts. We're not just being mislead by a few dudes profiting off the gullible. No way, man.

Ally Dick

The buildings collapsed the way they did, because they were built quickly and cheaply, like a house of cards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i11Yo3qKZV8

whubee

I was thinking about this the other day after watching a little bit on building 7.

My first initial assessment of the whole thing was that it was entirely a terrorist act. Then I had a good look at the facts.

My second assessment was again that it was indeed a terrorist attack and there were now a bunch of oddballs not shutting up with their wild conspiracy theories.

My third assessment after having watched a bit on building seven is that there are indeed still a bunch of oddball conspiracy theorists who wont s.t.f.u.

But importantly there is also a bunch of idiots who like to make fun of the oddballs. All of this causes a noise through which reasoned unbiased assessment cant take place. (on the internets that is)

There is now a culture of 'teams' or 'sides' on the debate and that is hindering people from forming objective, dispassionate opinions.

Its also possibly hindering people out there who may, just may, possibly, have solid irrefutable facts that may possibly be important.

As it stands I find building seven to be suspicious in some ways and wouldnt put it past the govt agencies who had interests in that building to make a cold, possibly illegal, decision if it meant defending their agenda.

(the whole enron case being squished by building 7 thing is a wee bit dodgy)

The 'truthers' have a big hill to climb on this one before ever being taken seriously.


p.s george galloway did a good balanced radio program on this, its on youtube somewhere. he listened without prejudice and asked genuine intelligent questions.

(such as ...if it was an inside job, what were the objectives and wouldnt there surely be an easier, less risky way)

niallo27

99% of me knows it was terrorists but that same part of thinks something dodgy went on, what's wrong with asking a few questions, is it really that impossible to think something was done inside for other objectives, is there not even a tiny chance

IvaBigWun

Then there's the witness plants/actors

Probably my fav is this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY

enfant terrible

Keano! wrote: »

Inside job.... easy for me to just say that, but i honestle feel its the truth.

watched a lot of stuff on it in the last two years and i'm convinced. oil and clearing debts the motives.


anyway....

...each to their own i suppose

How much has US dept gone down by since they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

niallo27

Ally Dick wrote: »

The buildings collapsed the way they did, because they were built quickly and cheaply, like a house of cards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i11Yo3qKZV8

Didnt the towers have major fires in 1975 that burnt for much longer with no structural damage. I'm open to correction here