9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

UglyFuc

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

tolosenc

Well, technically it was a conspiracy theory. Many members of Al-Qaeda conspired to murder thousands of people.

This should clear things up.

And "pull it" is not the industry jargon for going ahead with a demolition, and Silverstein was referring to the operation. Pull the plug, get the guys out of there.

I used to believe all the ****e that "911 Truthers" spew. Loads of it makes huge assumptions and is easily debunked.

4leto

niallo27 wrote: »

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

Not coupled with a massive explosion that destroyed the fire proofing and weakened the steel.

Why am I still opening this loon thread:mad::mad:

storker

My name is URL wrote: »

The best intelligence agency in the world

How do you know it's the best? Is there a league table?

*It'd really only need to involve a handful of people.. a couple of field-operatives and their handler.

So, no need for CIA involvement at all then.

Stork

Ally Dick

niallo27 wrote: »

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

Sounds like a good argument alright

Solnskaya

niallo27 wrote: »

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

towers collasing-explainable and fair enough. tower 7??? well dodgy. I find it all very suss. especially what occurred at the pentagon.

Nation 98

Building 7 will always make 9/11 suspicious.

niallo27

4leto wrote: »

Not coupled with a massive explosion that destroyed the fire proofing and weakened the steel.

Why am I still opening this loon thread:mad::mad:

The official report says nothing about the explosions causing the collapses, it was all fire damage, IM NOT SAYING IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB, just find it odd it tool only 40 mins to collapse

Sanjuro

9/11 was a terrorist attack. That is the truth of it. It was not, in any way, an inside-job or a false-flag operation. There was a conspiracy within the US government, but not to do with the attack. The conspiracy was about minimizing the damage the US government had done to itself by completely dropping the ball on seeing the attacks coming. There was a threat. They knew there was a high chance of an attack. And they screwed up stopping it from happening.

Also, there was no global terrorist conspiracy that planned 9/11. Al Qaeda did not plan the attack. The attack was the brainchild of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and a small group of fanatics. Most of which died in the attack. Osama Bin Laden was involved, but his involvement was absolutely minimal. At most, he provided some materiel support. But he was not the mastermind. What he did do after the attack was seize upon the free publicity he got, and inflated the threat of Al Qaeda, which was more an idea than an organisation, into the global terrorist organisation we're told it is today.

storker

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.

You've hit the nail on the head and illustrated nicely the difference between maintaining an open mind and being a conspiracy theorist. I voted "terror attack", but that doesn't mean I think it's impossible that there was some kind of inside job. But the fact that I think an inside job is a(n unlikely) possibility doesn't mean I think that's what happened. In the meantime, I'm content to rely on the principle of Occam's Razor and the value of actual evidence over mere innuendo.

For the conspiracy theorist, the possibility becomes indistinguishable from the actuality.

Stork

Gneez

Naive people, naive people everywhere in this thread.

The_Kew_Tour

Just going back to what I said earlier. I remember working in Saudi Arabia for month and while there I got to know a few sound blokes, but very anti american.

Anyway one day 9/11 got brought up and two the men told us that one of the men was still alive. They so wanted to prove us right they asked us to come with them. They pointed out a house where supposedly one of the terrorists still lived with his parents. We waited for bit, but be honest myself and co worker lost interest, but they really wanted us see him.

I dont know if these guys were just making it up or not to this day. I believe 80% of what we are told about 9/11 was true. Few things I am still little puzzled about, but I think its in our nature sometimes to question things even when the truth is right in front of us..

I dont think though that the American government were as upset about the attacks as they let on. It was perfect excuse for them to go to war.

Voodu Child

Im not a conspiracy nut but I believe that extremists/terrorists who want to blow up Americans are a deliberately manufactured enemy.

starbelgrade

Sanjuro wrote: »

9/11 was a terrorist attack. That is the truth of it. It was not, in any way, an inside-job or a false-flag operation. There was a conspiracy within the US government, but not to do with the attack. The conspiracy was about minimizing the damage the US government had done to itself by completely dropping the ball on seeing the attacks coming. There was a threat. They knew there was a high chance of an attack. And they screwed up stopping it from happening.

Also, there was no global terrorist conspiracy that planned 9/11. Al Qaeda did not plan the attack. The attack was the brainchild of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and a small group of fanatics. Most of which died in the attack. Osama Bin Laden was involved, but his involvement was absolutely minimal. At most, he provided some materiel support. But he was not the mastermind. What he did do after the attack was seize upon the free publicity he got, and inflated the threat of Al Qaeda, which was more an idea than an organisation, into the global terrorist organisation we're told it is today.

You seem to have all the answers... :eek:

niallo27

Gneez wrote: »

Naive people, naive people everywhere in this thread.

Not sure which side of the fence your talking about

Sanjuro

starbelgrade wrote: »

You seem to have all the answers... :eek:

Fuck no. But from what I've looked into myself, that's the conclusion I've come to. And believe me, Sanjuro in 2002 was a firm believer it was an insider job.

starbelgrade

Sanjuro wrote: »

Fuck no. But from what I've looked into myself, that's the conclusion I've come to. And believe me, Sanjuro in 2002 was a firm believer it was an insider job.

I don't believe you.

I think you know way too much. In fact, I think Sanjuro stands for;

Secret Al-Qaeda Newbie Joins Underground Revloutionary Organisation

IvaBigWun

Sanjuro wrote: »

Also, there was no global terrorist conspiracy that planned 9/11. Al Qaeda did not plan the attack. The attack was the brainchild of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and a small group of fanatics

Ive watched many, many documentaries and read hours of theories and this is the first time Ive heard of this guy.

starbelgrade

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Ive watched many, many documentaries and read hours of theories and this is the first time Ive heard of this guy.

He's a close relative of Sheik Rattle & Roll.

IvaBigWun

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't believe you.

I think you know way too much. In fact, I think Sanjuro stands for;

Secret Al-Qaeda Newbie Joins Underground Revloutionary Organisation

:pac:

Crazy Horse 6

Hold on when did this happen?

Penn

A post I made about a year ago on the CT forum:

Firstly, the building did not collapse as a result of the fire. It collapsed as a result of fire, and the fact that it was hit by a plane. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand the impact of a plane, but that is taking into consideration that the impact of a plane would be accidental and the plane would be attempting to slow down and divert. These planes were flown at full force into these buildings.

Structural steel members are designed to withstand fires for a certain period in order to allow the safe evacuation of the building and to try to allow the firemen to extinguish the fire before the structural integrity of the building is compromised to prevent the building collapsing. To give the required fireproofing to the steel, different methods can be used. The problem is, due to the impact of the planes, it is highly likely that a lot of the fireproofing (for example, the steel being cased in concrete) would have been compromised and the steel exposed to the fire.

With the amount of structural steel which would be required for this type of building, each member is dependant on the other members around it. Removing one places additional loading on the others, and also causes the forces acting upon those members to change (eg. a column with additional loading and with support at the top removed may start to be pushed outwards, pulling other members with it).

So with a number of the steel members being displaced by the impact of the plane, and more members with reduced fire-proofing being weakened by the fires, it is entirely plausible that the top section above the impact zones would collapse down onto the rest of the building.

As far as resistance of the lower floors goes, I ask you this.... How much do you think 25 floors of a skyscraper weighs? The building is designed to carry this load, but not when the load is collapsing onto it. For example, I can carry a bag of coal. But if someone drops a bag of coal on me, either it or me is ending up on the floor. And I don't agree that there was 'no' resistance. With the amount of debris and dust, it cannot be said for definite that there was no resistance. That building did not fall at 'free-fall' speed. I'm sorry, but it didn't. But remember that with every floor which collapsed, the weight falling onto the floor below increases, and more members of the structure are being displaced or removed, so less resistance is possible.

As for WTC7, the building was not only hit by falling debris from the other towers, but also vibrational energy from the impact of 2 skyscrapers falling nearby. Then with the fires which started in that building, as I said, steel is designed to withstand fire for a certain amount of time, but the fires in WTC7 were allowed to continue burning as the building had already been evacuated, and they wanted to focus efforts elsewhere. The building collapsed after 5 o'clock, about 7 hours after the collapse of the first tower, and had been pretty much burning continuously. With the damage caused by the falling debris, and the way the building was designed, the building collapsed. It can be seen from videos that a 'kink' appeared in the roof just before it collapsed. This would have been caused by the steel under it collapsing first. This indicates that the internal structure collapsed before the external structure, which would also have lessened the so-called 'resistance'

Also, the logistics of wiring up the buildings for a controlled demolition, whether it be explosives or nano-thermites or whatever, is next to impossible. The work to bring 3 building down by controlled demolition could not have been undertaken without being noticed and is just plain illogical

Pacing Mule

starbelgrade wrote: »

You seem to have all the answers... :eek:

There's been a great series showing on FX in the last few weeks. Path to 9/11 - It's been documenting everything that went on in the years up to the attacks and is a fascinating education. I too had assumed it was Bin Ladens idea etc but this was not the case.

WonderWoman!

willmunny1990 wrote: »

A terror attack by a bunch of pissed off muslims with sand in there vaginas

Oh Yes because all muslims are pissed off loons who love murdering thousands:rolleyes:

teol

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Ive watched many, many documentaries and read hours of theories and this is the first time Ive heard of this guy.

He is on trial in the US for the attacks.

niallo27

Barrington wrote: »

A post I made about a year ago on the CT forum:

Good post, well informed post, do you find it a bit odd the tower fell so fast though, and also in the case of building 7, building have being known to burn for a day without falling, I heard no building have collapsed due to fire damage, is this just a myth.

sunflower27

starbelgrade wrote: »

He's a close relative of Sheik Rattle & Roll.

It's actually Sheik Rabbi and Roll.

Ally Dick

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

There's been a great series showing on FX in the last few weeks. Path to 9/11 - It's been documenting everything that went on in the years up to the attacks and is a fascinating education. I too had assumed it was Bin Ladens idea etc but this was not the case.

Thanks. It's repeated on FX on Friday and Sunday from 9pm to 11pm

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

Good post, well informed post, do you find it a bit odd the tower fell so fast though, and also in the case of building 7, building have being known to burn for a day without falling, I heard no building have collapsed due to fire damage, is this just a myth.

Tower falling fast:
Once the top of each tower began to collapse, the weight falling down increases with each floor. To start, you have about 20 floors falling, with each floor it breaks through, the weight of that floor is added to the collapsing load. It fell fast, but not unnaturally fast.

Building 7:
The building was partially damaged by debris from the collapses of the other towers, not to the same extent as the towers when hit by the planes, but large fires on several floors with essentially no effort to put the fires out. I've read about a structural flaw in the design which also would have contributed, but don't know enough about it. Didn't seem like a controlled demolition to me though. And stell frame buildings have collapsed before due to fire, just not buildings of that size, and not having sustained the levels of damage they did.

Sanjuro

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't believe you.

I think you know way too much. In fact, I think Sanjuro stands for;

Secret Al-Qaeda Newbie Joins Underground Revloutionary Organisation

Oh fu.....

... I mean... your god, no. I'm all about western capital ideals. I love your base foot ball and freedom of the speech...