9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

enfant terrible

niallo27 wrote: »

I don't know, can we be 100% positive it fell for these reason.

No buy apply occam's razor to the evidence.

brummytom

I don't believe the majority of conspiracies about 9/11; but I do have doubts about 'Flight 93'.

Personally, I think there's a good chance it was shot down before it went for the White House, and the story about the 'American heroes' who tried to regain control from the hijackers is a convenient cover.

UsernameInUse

Where's the "Retaliation for all that's occurred during the last century" option?

Laois_Man

brummytom wrote: »

I don't believe the majority of conspiracies about 9/11; but I do have doubt about 'Flight 93'.

Personally, I think there's a good chance it was shot down before it went for the White House, and the story about the 'American heroes' who tried to regain control from the hijackers is a convenient cover.

Agree completely. I don't really believe it was a conspiracy but there are a few things about the day and things said later that make me wonder and the whole Hollywood thing with flight 93 is just taking the piss as far as I'm concerned.

Burky126

brummytom wrote: »

I don't believe the majority of conspiracies about 9/11; but I do have doubts about 'Flight 93'.

Personally, I think there's a good chance it was shot down before it went for the White House, and the story about the 'American heroes' who tried to regain control from the hijackers is a convenient cover.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/flight-93/#finalcall

In case your interested.

KeithAFC

What conspiracies do some people on here actually believe in regards to 9/11?

enfant terrible

brummytom wrote: »

I don't believe the majority of conspiracies about 9/11; but I do have doubts about 'Flight 93'.

Personally, I think there's a good chance it was shot down before it went for the White House, and the story about the 'American heroes' who tried to regain control from the hijackers is a convenient cover.

How much research have you done on Flight 93?

Pretty disrespectful to dismiss what they did without even researching it.

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-04-12/justice/moussaoui.trial_1_hijackers-ziad-samir-jarrah-tape?_s=PM:LAW

niallo27

enfant terrible wrote: »

No buy apply occam's razor to the evidence.

Well the evidence should suggest other buildings closer to the towers collapsing that day, or at least have severe damage to them.

The_Kew_Tour

KeithAFC wrote: »

What conspiracies do some people on here actually believe in regards to 9/11?

well finding a passport of one the hijackers was a stupid move, btw i pretty much dont believe in a conspiracy, but more the government were off the ball on situation

Wompa1

niallo27 wrote: »

Well the evidence should suggest other buildings closer to the towers collapsing that day, or at least have severe damage to them.

Many of the buildings in WTC Plaza did have damage...

marco_polo

niallo27 wrote: »

Well the evidence should suggest other buildings closer to the towers collapsing that day, or at least have severe damage to them.

You'd think so alright

WTC 3

WTC 4

But I suppose the damage to these was accidental, since there was no controlled explosions to bring them down.

EI_Flyboy

You know, both sides of this debate are populated by conspiracy theorists. You're either pro inside job conspiracy theorist or you're pro terrorist conspiracy theorist. Neither side has been proven and all you do is argue over who is right. What you should really be doing is figuring out what the important questions are, if they've been answered satisfactorily and if not why not? Here are a few questions I don't see anyone asking:

Why has there been no FAA aircrash investigation? This is highly unusual. What happened to the Blackboxes...? The question of the a number of supposed hijackers turning up alive, if it wasn't them onboard, who was? WTC7, wtf was that all about, why is it ignored in the mainstream media, what was in there? The Pentagon, who or what was destroyed/killed and does it tie in with the rest of what happened or was the impact site truly random? Why were a whole load of Saudis allowed to fly out while all other airtraffic was grounded? After a relatively low amount of flying lessons, how does someone go from flying a Cessna to controlling an airliner into a small target at more than 60degrees of bank, first attempt on their first flight?

I'm sure there are plenty of other questions that remain unanswered or unthought of but to think explaining how the towers fell solves the whole puzzle is a joke. If you want to believe the official line, fine but don't think it makes you look wise, rarely is the truth in these matters okayed for mass consumption. It's more likely you believe one side over the other because that's where your natural bias lies. It is actually ok to question the facts, feel free to explore all possibilities without the need to accept them as true, you may find other new questions or you may solidify what you already believe. In order for a theory to be accepted, ALL other explanations must be tested.

tolosenc

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes there were plenty of fires no doubt about that, I just find it odd they got hot enough to weaken steel so fast.

Well, my mates and I had a fire going on the beach a few months ago. Just wood pallets. One of the lads was messing and threw an empty bottle in. The glass melted.

ie, a wood fire burned hot enough to melt glass, ie 1400+ degrees C.

I reckon there might have been a fair bit of wood in the office block.

niallo27 wrote: »

the towers themselves burnt in 1975 for hours with no structural damage.

Yes, but they weren't hit by a plane, and thus the fireproofing held out.

gbee wrote: »

Finally only a fraction of the expected staff turned up on the day.

There's a lot of made up crap in the rest of that post, but this is one I hear a lot. Do people not realise that the attack happend before 9am? There were plenty of people who turned up to work, saw that a plane had crashed into their office block, and sharpishly got the **** out of there.

Cali Witty Vampire wrote: »

I'd consider this an "Ad Hominem Attack". It's silly to suggest people are moronic if the consider anything but your opinion to be fact.

It's my opinion that the earth is (roughly) spherical and over 4 billion years old, is it silly to suggest that young-earth-creationists or flat-earthers are morons?

gbee wrote: »

NASA. USAF. [?]

Are you trying to say that because one governemnt agency has been accused by wackjobs of a cover up, that any government agency is then automatically capable of a cover up?

droicead wrote: »

so you fully believe a 757 hit the pentagon?

Yes. There's a lot of very solid evidence for it. Includng eye witnesses.

niallo27 wrote: »

Well the evidence should suggest other buildings closer to the towers collapsing that day, or at least have severe damage to them.

Were these other buildings also hit by burning debris which caused them to catch fire and lose structural integrity?

Why is it that some people are so determined to reject the obvious truth in favour of outlandish theories based on wild presuppositions, partial facts, misunderstandings of basic scientific principles and illogical connections?

niallo27

marco_polo wrote: »

You'd think so alright

WTC 3

WTC 4

But I suppose the damage to these was accidental, since there was no controlled explosions to bring them down.

These building were right underneath the towers but yet are mainly still intact, but yet building 7 further away completely collapsed in one movement, who mentioned controlled explosives, but thanks for proving my point with the pictures

Killer Pigeon

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Explain the demolition type collapse of WTC 7. No plane hit this building!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

In my opinion, it's outrageous to think that the WTC7 building was destroyed as part an inside job; a building that contained the offices of the US Secret Service, US Department of Defense, CIA, US Immigration & Naturalization Service and the NYC Office of Emergency Management.

Why do people think it was an inside job just because WTC7 collapsed mysteriously and, coincidentally, contained all the services necessary to protect the public and possibly even to pull of an inside job? I mean some conspiracy theorists are just off their rocker to be honest. Somehow they actually think that the US was trying to cover up this supposed inside job by purposely destroying records.

enfant terrible

niallo27 wrote: »

These building were right underneath the towers but yet are mainly still intact, but yet building 7 further away completely collapsed in one movement, who mentioned controlled explosives, but thanks for proving my point with the pictures

So what would be your theory of why WTC 7 fell if it wasn't it being hit by a sky scraper or being on fire?

marco_polo

niallo27 wrote: »

These building were right underneath the towers but yet are mainly still intact, but yet building 7 further away completely collapsed in one movement, who mentioned controlled explosives, but thanks for proving my point with the pictures

So that proves you point, which was letting on that no other buildings in the vicinity had severe damage. I'll quote it again just in case you cannot scroll up that far.

niallo27 wrote: »

Well the evidence should suggest other buildings closer to the towers collapsing that day, or at least have severe damage to them.

niallo27

tolosenc wrote: »

Well, my mates and I had a fire going on the beach a few months ago. Just wood pallets. One of the lads was messing and threw an empty bottle in. The glass melted.

ie, a wood fire burned hot enough to melt glass, ie 1400+ degrees C.

I reckon there might have been a fair bit of wood in the office block.



Yes, but they weren't hit by a plane, and thus the fireproofing held out.



There's a lot of made up crap in the rest of that post, but this is one I hear a lot. Do people not realise that the attack happend before 9am? There were plenty of people who turned up to work, saw that a plane had crashed into their office block, and sharpishly got the **** out of there.



It's my opinion that the earth is (roughly) spherical and over 4 billion years old, is it silly to suggest that young-earth-creationists or flat-earthers are morons?



Are you trying to say that because one governemnt agency has been accused by wackjobs of a cover up, that any government agency is then automatically capable of a cover up?



Yes. There's a lot of very solid evidence for it. Includng eye witnesses.



Were these other buildings also hit by burning debris which caused them to catch fire and lose structural integrity?

Why is it that some people are so determined to reject the obvious truth in favour of outlandish theories based on wild presuppositions, partial facts, misunderstandings of basic scientific principles and illogical connections?

We are not rejecting the truth, we are questioning it, seems odd the black boxes were never found, but yet a passport was found.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

IF WT7 was destrpyed by goverment agenices or whatever, who planted these explosives which would be a considerable task what with drilling and whatnot. How would the thousands of people in there not notice such planning?
And how would they find people willing to do it?

Don't jump down my throat, genuine questions here.

niallo27

marco_polo wrote: »

So that proves you point, which was letting on that no other buildings in the vicinity had severe damage. I'll quote it again just in case you cannot scroll up that far.

Major damage alright but these building were very much intact would you not agree, but yet building 7 completely collapsed in one movement

niallo27

enfant terrible wrote: »

So what would be your theory of why WTC 7 fell if it wasn't it being hit by a sky scraper or being on fire?

I'm not quite sure

andrew

I've never heard a satisfactory answer from CT'ers to these questions:

If this is a government/non Radial muslim conspiracy: Why did the plotters attack the WTC? How was this attack the most efficient way to pursue whatever goals the plotters had in mind? Were these goals a foreseeable consequence of the attacks occurring in the first place?

niallo27

Gunnar Calm Locket wrote: »

IF WT7 was destrpyed by goverment agenices or whatever, who planted these explosives which would be a considerable task what with drilling and whatnot. How would the thousands of people in there not notice such planning?
And how would they find people willing to do it?

Don't jump down my throat, genuine questions here.

There would be plenty of people to do it, I don't know how much work it would take to it, but I don't know if you work in an office or building but if you saw maintenance work going on would you care or remember, I'm in no way saying I think this is what happened.

KeithAFC

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

well finding a passport of one the hijackers was a stupid move, btw i pretty much dont believe in a conspiracy, but more the government were off the ball on situation

What is the problem people seem to have with 9/11 and why some still want to find a conspiracy in it? Everything I have seen on it seems pretty logical enough to me from a scientific view point on the collapse of the towers to the Pentagon and the evidence of debris on the lawn and engine parts.

I struggle to see why people would think it is an inside job when the evidence says otherwise. I know some might question certain things and the US government but people should use the term inside job carefully.

The problem some people have is they just can't believe how it happened in that they can't believe such chaos could happen to a country like America and the video footage and pictures to this day is incredible and even i sometimes say to myself "how on earth did that happen" but I honestly just think America got caught with its pants down.

Some people can't believe that 19 hijackers could cause so much damage and yet it did happen and America didn't have a clue about it.

jive

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

You know, both sides of this debate are populated by conspiracy theorists. You're either pro inside job conspiracy theorist or you're pro terrorist conspiracy theorist. Neither side has been proven and all you do is argue over who is right. What you should really be doing is figuring out what the important questions are, if they've been answered satisfactorily and if not why not? Here are a few questions I don't see anyone asking:

Why has there been no FAA aircrash investigation? This is highly unusual. What happened to the Blackboxes...? The question of the a number of supposed hijackers turning up alive, if it wasn't them onboard, who was? WTC7, wtf was that all about, why is it ignored in the mainstream media, what was in there? The Pentagon, who or what was destroyed/killed and does it tie in with the rest of what happened or was the impact site truly random? Why were a whole load of Saudis allowed to fly out while all other airtraffic was grounded? After a relatively low amount of flying lessons, how does someone go from flying a Cessna to controlling an airliner into a small target at more than 60degrees of bank, first attempt on their first flight?

No. It is known that a group of terrorists flew planes into buildings. Those who believe it was an inside job are the conspiracy theorists.

With regards to the FAA, is it highly unusual? How do you know this? Did you just watch a video and someone said that?
What hijackers turned up alive? Pretty sure that never happened.
Why is it relevant what was in one of the buildings when roughly 3,000 people were left dead? Files found in that building are not relevant to the publics main interest.
What about the Pentagon? A plane flew into it.
What Saudis were allowed to fly out? Do you have evidence of this?
How many flying lessons were had? Which pilot are you talking about? There were 4 hijacked planes.

Let me pose a question to the conspiracy theorists. Which do you think is more likely:
1) Some foreign people hijacked planes and flew them into objects unbeknownst to the American people
or
2) Americans successfully plotted against their own people without any information leaking out from any of these American people. They managed to not only rig 3 buildings (2 of which were among the largest buildings in the world) in the city that never sleeps for a demolition without anyone seeing this happen but also managed to find people to rig the buildings, again without any information leaking out. Also they managed to find a minimum of 8 people (realistically 16-24) willing to fly to their deaths for the financial benefit of a few without any of these people telling anybody? I find it highly unlikely that every person involved in the situation just happened to go along with it and happened to say nothing. An attack on such a scale would had to have many, many people involved and none of whom happened to tell their family, friends or the media about any of this and willingly died for financial gain for others?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

niallo27

andrew wrote: »

I've never heard a satisfactory answer from CT'ers to these questions:

If this is a government/non Radial muslim conspiracy: Why did the plotters attack the WTC? How was this attack the most efficient way to pursue whatever goals the plotters had in mind? Were these goals a foreseeable consequence of the attacks occurring in the first place?

Well if I was a CT'er I presume they knew an attack on the WTC would be like another pearl harbor, they knew the American public would want revenge

marco_polo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In my opinion, it's outrageous to think that the WTC7 building was destroyed as part an inside job; a building that contained the offices of the US Secret Service, US Department of Defense, CIA, US Immigration & Naturalization Service and the NYC Office of Emergency Management.

Why do people think it was an inside job just because WTC7 collapsed mysteriously and, coincidentally, contained all the services necessary to protect the public and possibly even to pull of an inside job? I mean some conspiracy theorists are just off their rocker to be honest. Somehow they actually think that the US was trying to cover up this supposed inside job by purposely destroying records.

While it is of course very likely that the CIA and DoD stored all their top secret information in the 25th floor offices that they shared with the IRS, wouldn't it have been easier just to not put it there in the first place rather that to have to destroy the entire building?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

niallo27 wrote: »

Well if I was a CT'er I presume they knew an attack on the WTC would be like another pearl harbor, they knew the American public would want revenge

Well it's conclusive then. Does the same go for the Lodon, Madrid and Bali attacks?

seanybiker

Alot of its probably bull but its still an interesting listen.

niallo27

Gunnar Calm Locket wrote: »

Well it's conclusive then. Does the same go for the Lodon, Madrid and Bali attacks?

The poster asked the question about the 9/11 attacks and I answered, if you believe the uk government was in on it too that's your opinion