9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

Hulk Hands

Sanjuro wrote: »

Proper question though... how could a government that absolutely screwed up everything it put it's hand to- Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, pretty much everything it was put in power to work on... how could this government possibly have pulled off an attack on it's own country and managed to fool pretty much the entire world (except those who believe the conspiracy theory) and make it look like an attack by a foreign terrorist group?

Exactly. They did screw it up. If they had pulled this job off correctly then there wouldn't be so much video evidence, pictures and personal accounts of explosions. The hole in the pentagon wouldn't have been smaller than if a Helicopter had hit the building. They wouldn't have made the bone headed decision of using WT7 as it's center point, the furthest building away from the towers yet the only one to collapse. And 25% of American's and 18% of AH readers wouldn't think this was an inside job. This was a monumental f**k up by the US government.

4leto wrote: »

I just watched "Seconds from disaster" about 9/11

I think the most shocking thing I have ever seen in my life was that second plane hit the tower live.

You have to give O Bin Laden credit foe that incredible daring plan, it has probably succeeded in bankrupting America as Afghanistan bankrupted the old Soviet Empire.

But I can't believe that was 10 years ago

Really? It has bankrupt America? So America hasn't gained from these wars at all? Have a quick search on the net there and study how profitable war is.

This is not to mention the gains made by obtaining oil.

A point noone ever brings up is how America goes in and takes over whatever country it has been at war with or aided. An example is Kuwait. Prior to the Gulf war, Kuwait was a completely Arab country with little American influence. Now talk to anyone who has been to recently. McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Coke, Walmart etc etc, it's all full of American business. The same is happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tell me that's not profitable for American business and its government.

Burky126 wrote: »

It's all a matter of who you want to believe,an official government report on the investigation of the attack with multiple testimonies,references and documentation.....or youtube videos which can be made very easily with questionable sources unable to track down on the web with commentators with loose credentials.

Decisions

Yes. One Government report which was hastily done, and which even official line believers think is incomplete and poor. That report has been derided by many for years, and there has been repeated calls for an in-depth independent report to be carried out on 9/11.

There is a new government in place, so even if there were mistakes made, why doesn't the new government commission a new independent report? They won't be held accountable, and it would help restore confidence in the 25% of the US population which believes it's government carried out such acts.

Every major global event has had multiple reports carried out upon it, eg. Chernobyl. Sure even the Saipan incident had an independent report carried out. Why wont the US commission one? Half the conspiracy theorists out there came about because that report was so poorly done and inconclusive.

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 point one and two can be answered by the Government needing to pull off something huge and brass to whip up public and international support for invading 2 countries. Remember that there was a lot of American's that were anti the Iraq war and even more so internationally. So maybe taking out 2 iconic buildings in the capital of the world was the least the US government had to do to achieve it's goals. Answer 3 is a very easy Yes, I can't understand why it's even in there.

Deleted User wrote: »

Inside job.. I hate admitting it but yea, there's a list of things that happened that day that make it pretty obvious.
Even the timing of it.. What terrorist decides to put in place such a complex operation before the towers were even full that day?

Good point. Why wouldn't the terrorists pull off the attack an hour later and kill multiple times more people?

niallo27

Building 7 had a complete collapse yet all building around it had little damage, is that not even a tiny bit odd. On the point of the pentagon and flight 93 many well known journalists are to be seen reporting that they saw no plane wreckage and it looked as if no plane had crashed, of course they quickly changed their mind.

I just think some odd things happened that day, how could they let a commercial plane fly into one of the most restricted air spaces in the world.

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

Building 7 had a complete collapse yet all building around it had little damage, is that not even a tiny bit odd. On the point of the pentagon and flight 93 many well known journalists are to be seen reporting that they saw no plane wreckage and it looked as if no plane had crashed, of course they quickly changed their mind.

I just think some odd things happened that day, how could they let a commercial plane fly into one of the most restricted air spaces in the world.

Building 7

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Little damage?

niallo27

Barrington wrote: »

Building 7

Little damage?

I said around building 7, they are all intact

Seachmall

Hulk Hands wrote: »

...

I'm not actually going to address any of your points because I'd probably have more of an impact conversing with my bowels (they don't produce half the shit 9/11 conspiracy theorists do) but I will ask do you understand our position that 99.99% of the experts in the relevant fields are the more reliable sources in such conspiracy theories or do you feel your opinion and amateur/arm-chair investigation should surpass theirs'?

niallo27

Barrington wrote: »

Building 7

Little damage?

The original FEMA report said the fires were quite small and were only a few floors, this was then changed years later.

humanji

niallo27 wrote: »

Building 7 had a complete collapse yet all building around it had little damage, is that not even a tiny bit odd. On the point of the pentagon and flight 93 many well known journalists are to be seen reporting that they saw no plane wreckage and it looked as if no plane had crashed, of course they quickly changed their mind.

I just think some odd things happened that day, how could they let a commercial plane fly into one of the most restricted air spaces in the world.

Which seems more likely:

1) Some pissed off Arabs hijacked a plane and flew it into the Pentagon.
or
2) The US hijacked a plane, made it disappear from radar and public view, killed the passengers and crew and disposed of their bodies and the plane, fired a missile from a secret location in a way that none of the several million inhabitants of Washington would see, hit the Pentagon, hired hundreds of people to say they saw a plane and make sure they were all able to keep secrets, secretly bring plane debris and deposit it around the area both inside and out of the impact zone, and pay off/threaten any of the several hundred people who they couldn't guarantee wouldn't see a missile hit the building?

If it was an inside job, would it not make sense to do exactly what they did at the twin towers? It doesn't make a lick of sense to do what is claimed in the missile theory.

Also, the Pentagon is beside an airport.

cosmicfart

9/11 wasnt a terror attack or an inside job. It was the inevitable end result of more than 60 + years since the end of World War II since when America has been meddling in the affairs of other independent countries/nations. The US can count itself lucky they havent been nuclear bombed instead of just a little bloody nose which they got via 9/11.

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

The original FEMA report said the fires were quite small and were only a few floors, this was then changed years later.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Sorry man, but again, these things have already been taken into consideration by people with a vast knowledge of this industry.

barone

for me the biggest turkey in the room so to speak is that after ten years, a war,years of questions asked and raised, massive uproar and global condemnation,huge manhunts, new security systems brought in on top of them that there is still no official proof of who committed this crime...

the biggest crime in american history !!

all those who were suspected/blamed have been killed or kept hidden away,lots of familliarities with other things that happend in america over the past century or so.

its all about the money/power, plain and simple in my eyes, we will never really know who did what or allowed what to happen,ever.

Hulk Hands

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not actually going to address any of your points because I'd probably have more of an impact conversing with my bowels (they don't produce half the shit 9/11 conspiracy theorists do) but I will ask do you understand our position that 99.99% of the experts in the relevant fields are the more reliable sources in such conspiracy theories or do you feel your opinion and amateur/arm-chair investigation should surpass theirs'?

Of course they are. I'm not even that big of a 9/11 theorist, I had a good study of it when I had a bit of time a couple of years ago, haven't got up to date with what the current theory's are.

If you have a problem with my points why don't you attack them directly? I

They are actually plenty of well respected experts who have gone on record as questioning the events that day. Obviously they are in the minority. There are plenty of reasons why experts take the official line on this, or keep quiet. One is obviously that they believe the official story. Another is that they don't want the backlash and fuss that committing to a conspiracy theory would bring about. (Eg: Most of Ireland now thinks that Jim Corr is bonkers). This could have severe affects on their future career. Also, if I was a US citizen I wouldn't be entirely comfortable going against the US government. But have a look around the Internet and you'll find plenty of well respected scientists who will tell you that it's impossible for jet fuel to weaken a building to that extent. And countless other admissions, especially in relation to building 7.

Hulk Hands

Kaiser we know at this stage what side you're on. Do you honestly have nothing better to do than spend you're day thanking every single anti CT post on the thread?

sensibleken

it annoys me that experts have to expend vast amounts of time and money disproving these rediculous conspiracy theories. Its a lot quicker to tell a lie than to refute it

niallo27

humanji wrote: »

Which seems more likely:

1) Some pissed off Arabs hijacked a plane and flew it into the Pentagon.
or
2) The US hijacked a plane, made it disappear from radar and public view, killed the passengers and crew and disposed of their bodies and the plane, fired a missile from a secret location in a way that none of the several million inhabitants of Washington would see, hit the Pentagon, hired hundreds of people to say they saw a plane and make sure they were all able to keep secrets, secretly bring plane debris and deposit it around the area both inside and out of the impact zone, and pay off/threaten any of the several hundred people who they couldn't guarantee wouldn't see a missile hit the building?

If it was an inside job, would it not make sense to do exactly what they did at the twin towers? It doesn't make a lick of sense to do what is claimed in the missile theory.

Also, the Pentagon is beside an airport.

Of course the 1st option is way more probable, but it's not as easy as just saying some Arabs hijacked a plane, why is there no videos of what happened that day, does that not strike you as a bit odd, is it not incredibly hard to fly a plane into such a low building, there have being lots of witnesses that say they didn't think it was a plane, plenty of journalists said that day they saw no plane wreckage.

jonnyfingers

But we all know JFK was shot from two different positions........

Oh wrong conspiracy theory, sorry.

mackeire

it was the work of a bunch of pissed off muslims. They even caught the man responsible and burried his body at sea before anyone could see it.

niallo27

sensibleken wrote: »

it annoys me that experts have to expend vast amounts of time and money disproving these rediculous conspiracy theories. Its a lot quicker to tell a lie than to refute it

There was more money spent on the Clinton investigation than on 9/11.

AnonoBoy

Andrew Maxwell will sort all of this out next Thursday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gpjx

--Kaiser--

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Kaiser we know at this stage what side you're on. Do you honestly have nothing better to do than spend you're day thanking every single anti CT post on the thread?

And why does that bother you?
To be honest I'd say you spent longer writing your long winded, poorly argued and largely irrelevant post than I have spent even reading this whole thread

Hulk Hands

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And why does that bother you?
To be honest I'd say you spent longer writing your long winded, poorly argued and largely irrelevant post than I have spent even reading this whole thread

As opposed to the magical insight you've given to this thread? But don't worry, someone will be along soon enough to post whatever you're it is you're unable to condense into writing. Be sure to thank him after though

teol

niallo27 wrote: »

There was more money spent on the Clinton investigation than on 9/11.

There was not. 7,000 FBI agents investigated 9/11.

yogi beer

4leto wrote: »

A terror attack and its absolutely uncivilised and totally against our bubble wrapped society to think otherwise.

FYP.

AnonoBoy

niallo27 wrote: »

There was more money spent on the Clinton investigation than on 9/11.

Well if you believe the government's version of events there was but I heard that a secret bunker was constructed where they built lifesize replicas of the Twin Towers and have been endlessly recreating the day's events over and over again until they can figure out why exactly people are so fascinated by it, often ignoring important stuff that's going on in the world right now and stuff that affects them immediately and personally in favour of just posting links to Youtube videos and blogs with references to other Youtube videos and blogs which cite made up quotes taken from Youtube videos and blogs as evidence.

It's fascinating stuff really.

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

Of course the 1st option is way more probable, but it's not as easy as just saying some Arabs hijacked a plane, why is there no videos of what happened that day, does that not strike you as a bit odd, is it not incredibly hard to fly a plane into such a low building, there have being lots of witnesses that say they didn't think it was a plane, plenty of journalists said that day they saw no plane wreckage.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Honestly, this site goes over pretty much everything in great detail.

Seachmall

Hulk Hands wrote: »

If you have a problem with my points why don't you attack them directly?

1. I don't think I could convince any conspiracy theorist.
2. I have no actual qualifications or done any actual investigations into the incident and so can't presume I could intelligently conclude on anything.
3. I'll get to that in a moment.

They are actually plenty of well respected experts who have gone on record as questioning the events that day. Obviously they are in the minority.

The vast minority. There are biologists who preach creation and astrobiologists who preach alien abductions. There are experts in every field that preach the unlikely, illogical or down-right wrong in respect to their field and that is why peer-reviewed publications exist. An individual or minority group of scientists is not a reflection on what the scientific stance is. Through peer-reviewed publications and studies scientists can analyze eachother's findings and conclude on what is the most probable truth. It is this stance which is explained and taught to the layman to give them an insight into the world, any other stance is not taught because it's not considered the truth (as per the evidence).

There are plenty of reasons why experts take the official line on this, or keep quiet. One is obviously that they believe the official story. Another is that they don't want the backlash and fuss that committing to a conspiracy theory would bring about. (Eg: Most of Ireland now thinks that Jim Corr is bonkers). This could have severe affects on their future career. Also, if I was a US citizen I wouldn't be entirely comfortable going against the US government. But have a look around the Internet and you'll find plenty of well respected scientists who will tell you that it's impossible for jet fuel to weaken a building to that extent. And countless other admissions, especially in relation to building 7.

Everything here, except the bolded, is simply a convienent way of explaining why science doesn't support the conspiracy theories without any actual evidence. It's a way of discrediting the scientists without addressing the contradictory evidence, it's a massive ad-hominem attack against an independent community that has advanced our way of life by preaching it's findings regardless of religious or political opposition as history shows. It's an unjustified attack used to ignore the true findings of experts in favour of ridiculous claims.

These patterns are common in nearly every conspiracy theory from Scientology's fear of psychiatrist, ufo claims and 9/11 conspiracies.

And back to point 3.
I'm not addressing any points here because they don't need to be addressed. The entire presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories fits the typical mold of a false belief. The structure of arguments presented and ways contradictory issues are addressed do not allow for intelligent discussion, those presenting arguments are not qualified in the field they're addressing and the entire belief is contradictory to scientific findings. They don't need to be addressed because they can't be, and that is the downfall of any real discussion and exactly what conspiracy theorists rely on.

niallo27

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Well if you believe the government's version of events there was but I heard that a secret bunker was constructed where they built lifesize replicas of the Twin Towers and have been endlessly recreating the day's events over and over again until they can figure out why exactly people are so fascinated by it, often ignoring important stuff that's going on in the world right now and stuff that affects them immediately and personally in favour of just posting links to Youtube videos and blogs with references to other Youtube videos and blogs which cite made up quotes taken from Youtube videos and blogs as evidence.

It's fascinating stuff really.

It is fascinating stuff, I'm only asking a few questions and getting really good answers back, I don't really know what your talking about when you talk about ignoring stuff that's happening to me personally, I'm not losing any sleep over this man.

AnonoBoy

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm not losing any sleep over this man.

That's what the government WANT you to believe!!!

But I heard they actually go into your house at night, wake you up, question you about this stuff, deprive you of sleep and then use a flashy-thing on you to wipe your memory so you think you had a restful night. That's why you sometimes feel like nodding off just after lunch. Science might say it's because you're digesting your food and that makes you sleepy but I know better. It's the government.

The bastards.

--Kaiser--

Hulk Hands wrote: »

As opposed to the magical insight you've given to this thread? But don't worry, someone will be along soon enough to post whatever you're it is you're unable to condense into writing. Be sure to thank him after though

Frankly, any posts after Seachmall's are pretty pointless.....unless you want to refute any of the points on many of the well-written sites debunking the conspiracy theory? Such as this one

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

humanji

niallo27 wrote: »

Of course the 1st option is way more probable, but it's not as easy as just saying some Arabs hijacked a plane,

But it is. I'm not saying that there aren't questions to be asked, but there's too many people who will blindly say that the US government must 100% be behind it because they have a couple of questions that they can't answer (and a lot of the time somebody else already has). I've my own reservations about parts of the official story, but the official story doesn't have nearly as many holes in it as there are in any other theory.

why is there no videos of what happened that day, does that not strike you as a bit odd,

Do you have any footage of the Pentagon on any other day? The Pentagon isn't the hub of the US military, as its claimed it is in so many movies. It's basically an office block. It's symbolic (hence the attack), but it isn't that important. There's not much need to have many cameras pointing at the back wall of it.

is it not incredibly hard to fly a plane into such a low building,

Planes have hit low structures before. It's not a simple thing to aim for, but it's by no means an impossible thing to do.

there have being lots of witnesses that say they didn't think it was a plane, plenty of journalists said that day they saw no plane wreckage.

There's plenty of witnesses who say it was a plane. Why are they automatically ignored? And what about all the debris that was shown on the grounds?

I just don't get why planes would be used to hit the WTC and not the Pentagon. It's completely illogical and is full of so many holes that it really isn't even worth considering. There's just too many unknowns in the plan to make anyone considering to pull that hoax change their mind and just use a plane instead. It's adding hundreds of people to the conspiracy, and you just can't guarantee that that many will keep quiet.

niallo27

AnonoBoy wrote: »

That's what the government WANT you to believe!!!

But I heard they actually go into your house at night, wake you up, question you about this stuff, deprive you of sleep and then use a flashy-thing on you to wipe your memory so you think you had a restful night. That's why you sometimes feel like nodding off just after lunch. Science might say it's because you're digesting your food and that makes you sleepy but I know better. It's the government.

The bastards.

Is anyone probing people up the hole anymore like the good old days