9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

AnonoBoy

niallo27 wrote: »

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

Yup. That's why you feel so lubey every morning.

niallo27

humanji wrote: »

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.



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.



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'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.

You obviously know an incredible amount about what happened that, I would be interested to know what parts of the official story you question, about the pentagon, were all the surrounding CCTV footage immediately seized, why all the secrecy.

nacho libre

While i believe conspiracies do happen and are not always uncovered, the sheer number of people that would likely have to be in the loop to execute the plot successfully, would lead me to believe that it wasn't a conspiracy. How could ensure someone wouldn't squeal? Also, that's not even factoring the potential for human error to muck things up.

A more plausible scenario might be, a select few people got wind of the plot and decided to let it go ahead to push through geopolitical aims that were outlined in a document by neo-conservatives a few years before hand. Again, though, you would like to think that someone would have moral objections to this

it may well be that, contrary to a perception aided by the spy movie genre, intelligence agencies aren't all knowing/ all powerful - mistakes happen.

Gigiwagga

yeah yeah yeah...whatever...but watching the programme 'The Day the World Changed' last night I was filled with mixed emotions, but mostly one of anger. Because I was angered because the Irish national broadcaster would broadcast such pro US government propaganda, all these really nice guys kissing babies and grannies, just wouldn't hurt a fly, or an innocent country, like Iraq. That was what this programme was about, trying to get the world to understand the terrible pressure poor George and his henchmen were under when they decided(openly) to attack Iraq. Roll on their arrests and their hauling before the international criminal court.
Who attacked the WTC, who cares now, and we will never know for sure, and I wouldn't waste too much time over it. But we know for sure who attacked and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, hundreds of thousands, not three f***ing thousand that we hear about over and over every frigging september. There are 3 programmes on RTE this week commemorating 9/11 THIS WEEK! ffs. Why what's so bloody special about it!?
RTE are doing their best to forget Americas crimes, probably because ara shure wasn't JFK oirish, and isn't Obama one of our own, what a joke!

humanji

niallo27 wrote: »

You obviously know an incredible amount about what happened that, I would be interested to know what parts of the official story you question, about the pentagon, were all the surrounding CCTV footage immediately seized, why all the secrecy.

Well, when you take into account all the information out there on it, I don't know a whole bunch. But there's been many threads on many aspects of the day, in the conspiracy theories forum.

The main part of the official story that I'd question is the U93 flight. Two planes hit the twin towers, one hit the Pentagon and it was assumed at that point that U93 was part of the hijackings. The powers that be would have known that there was no way of talking them down, so it was a choice between shooting them down or letting them hit their target. Shooting them down would cost less lives and is the only logical choice to make.

That's not to say that I 100% believe that's what happened, just that if that turned out to be true, I wouldnt' be too shocked. There're recordings of phone calls from the passengers, but I've no way of checking if they're real or not. The official account does make sense and fits, but I still wonder.

And as for the CCTV footage, it was a terrorist attack. The authorities would want to get as much evidence of what happened as quickly as possible. I'm fairly sure all the footage has been since released back to the original owners.

cyrusdvirus

Het-Field wrote: »

The Jet Fuel thing is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether jet-fuel can burn at a high enough termperature to melt steel, the buildings were never designed to have planes fly into them. Unless you are a verifiable engineer, with knowledge of what such impact would do to such buildings, I will choose to consider your conspiracy theories with derision.

My opinion: Terrorist Attack.

Not a CT head AT ALL, and my own personal belief is that a bunch of murderous terrorist thugs murdered nearly 3000 people in the name of 'their' god and religion.

But the towers WERE designed to withstand being hit by a jetliner. When they were designed it was THOUGHT that a B707 era jet could get lost in New York coming into JFK or La Guardia in bad weather and potentially fly into one of the towers.

At low speed.

And a lower mean weight

And as it would be coming into land, with less fuel.

Mark200

Video re: Building 7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

4leto wrote: »

.

Edit I don't know what went wrong there

Conspiracy nuts tell me

This doesn't make any sense.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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.

Why didn't we think of that. Lets melt a glass bottle and compare it to the twin towers... Seriously.

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?

Another extremely poor comparison. Regardless of your opinion, it is foolish to state that those who don't agree with your opinion are moronic. It's an atempt to get people on your side, if they don't agree, they are morons.

Seachmall wrote: »

While there are plenty of less-than-amateur and arm-chair demolition "experts" here there is one line that undermines your position,

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." - Wiki

Your opinions on the matter are not in anyway equal to that of qualified experts with years of experience in the area. You may think you are the open-minded free-thinker refusing to buy into the naivety of the general public but you are, in fact, the man with a string around his tooth tied to a door because he believes the dentistry industry to be a cover for a satanic cult.

Nothing I say will convince you. You have bought into this belief system, fueled by ignorance of the industry and arrogance that your opinion, or the opinion of discredited or unqualified self-proclaimed "experts", is equal to that of an entire community that eats, drinks and breathes demolition. A community that define the industry and have consistently proven themselves to be fully worthy of being called experts in that field.

To continue to hold your beliefs you have misunderstood, misinterpreted or plain ignored the contradictions and criticisms the expert community have sent your way, when they have been generous enough to even consider your positions some-how response worthy. Which it's not.

tl;dr
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Wiki? Seriously?

:rolleyes:

Mark200

Cali Witty Vampire wrote: »

Wiki? Seriously?

:rolleyes:

Did you check the two citations given on the wikipedia page?

Duke Leonal Felmet

IvaBigWun wrote: »

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

You're welcome.

baddebt

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why was it an inside job OP? Did they plant bombs in the towers or something? I'd love to know how they got the bombs in the towers?

thismight be how the explosives where embedded into the tower's
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/01/127327/


there's simply too many Questions unanswered regarding 9/11 and afghan and iraq wars

Seachmall

Cali Witty Vampire wrote: »

Regardless of your opinion, it is foolish to state that those who don't agree with your opinion are moronic.

If your opinion is founded on scientific evidence and research which is available to all and competing opinions are founded on nothing but ignorance and wishful thinking then it's fair to say those people are morons. Not because they have a different opinion, but because they're morons.

baddebt wrote:

there's simply too many Questions unanswered regarding 9/11 and afghan and iraq wars

Maybe, but there are no questions with regards to what caused the collapse of the buildings. It has been constantly proven that the initial crash and following fires would cause the damage witnessed at ground zero. To assume any explosives or government involvement in the destruction of those buildings is to add a factor which has been shown to be unnecessary.

Liam Byrne

Het-Field wrote: »

Regardless of whether jet-fuel can burn at a high enough termperature to melt steel, the buildings were never designed to have planes fly into them..

To be fair, they're not designed to withstand a demolition job either, so the above doesn't either prove or disprove anything.

Sam Vimes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To be fair, they're not designed to withstand a demolition job either, so the above doesn't either prove or disprove anything.

His point was that the fact regularly pointed out by conspiracy people that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel is irrelevant. He supported this statement by pointing out that burning jet fuel was not the only thing affecting the building on the day, there was the small matter of a very large plane having crashed into the building. (Also things such as office furniture would also have been burning which may well burn hotter than jet fuel)

I don't see how you pointing out that the buildings weren't designed to withstand a demolition job counters his point about the jet fuel claim being irrelevant.......

cyrusdvirus

Either way, they WERE designed to survive a jet crashing into them.

Sam Vimes

gatecrash wrote: »

Either way, they WERE designed to survive a jet crashing into them.

A smaller jet. Also, the titanic was designed to be unsinkable and Apollo 1 was designed to go into space but instead the cockpit caught fire on the launch pad and all the astronauts died. Designs fail

cyrusdvirus

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A smaller jet. Also, the titanic was designed to be unsinkable and Apollo 1 was designed to go into space but instead the cockpit caught fire on the launch pad and all the astronauts died. Designs fail

I'm not a CT head, look at my post here. I agree with you.

But the buildings were designed to withstand an impact.

Apollo 1 caught fire because of Velcro, of all things, in a pressurised 100% oxygen atmosphere.

Titanic sank because they tried avoiding the iceberg. While that can never be fully proven, simply because no photos of the iceberg that she collided with exist. But it has been logically reasoned out that if they just went ploughing into the iceberg then 1, more than likely 2, and possibly 3 of the compartments would have been open to flooding, not 5. There would have been fatalities, and the ship would have been badly damaged, but she wouldn't have sank.

PeterIanStaker

Ten years after 9/11, and the question still remains unanswered: Has George W. Bush finished reading My Pet Goat yet?

Sam Vimes

gatecrash wrote: »

I'm not a CT head, look at my post here. I agree with you.

But the buildings were designed to withstand an impact.

Apollo 1 caught fire because of Velcro, of all things, in a pressurised 100% oxygen atmosphere.

Titanic sank because they tried avoiding the iceberg. While that can never be fully proven, simply because no photos of the iceberg that she collided with exist. But it has been logically reasoned out that if they just went ploughing into the iceberg then 1, more than likely 2, and possibly 3 of the compartments would have been open to flooding, not 5. There would have been fatalities, and the ship would have been badly damaged, but she wouldn't have sank.

I see. In that case I think it's probably best to refrain from saying things like "Either way, they WERE designed to survive a jet crashing into them", especially without a lot of clarification of what exactly you mean*. It'll only encourage them :P



*Even with the clarification it's probably a bad idea. Context can and will be stripped away by those who don't want to believe it

cyrusdvirus

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see. In that case I think it's probably best to refrain from saying things like "Either way, they WERE designed to survive a jet crashing into them", especially without a lot of clarification of what exactly you mean*. It'll only encourage them :P



*Even with the clarification it's probably a bad idea. Context can and will be stripped away by those who don't want to believe it

fair point, but to deny the fact, when it's fairly well known, would only give the CT heads more ammunition

If you had stated that they were not designed to withstand an impact from a jet, and some CT head found a link proving that they WERE designed to withstand it, then every valid point you made in the ensuing discussion would be called into question by the CT'er with a "you were wrong about this, what else are you wrong about" refrain.

That's my opinion anyway. Strip away their ridiculous arguments with logic and expose them for being wrong, it's the only way to beat a CT'er.

4leto

Sam Vimes wrote: »

His point was that the fact regularly pointed out by conspiracy people that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel is irrelevant. He supported this statement by pointing out that burning jet fuel was not the only thing affecting the building on the day, there was the small matter of a very large plane having crashed into the building. (Also things such as office furniture would also have been burning which may well burn hotter than jet fuel)

I don't see how you pointing out that the buildings weren't designed to withstand a demolition job counters his point about the jet fuel claim being irrelevant.......

It doesn't have to melt the steel it just has to soften the steel, like a blacksmith heating a horseshoe to bend it. Or a plumber heating a copper pipe to bend into shape.

Freddie59

Eric Cartman wrote: »

it was a terrible terror attack, but it in no way justified the oil wars america started afterwards , both the taliban and the americans are as bad as each other and neither deserved to have innocent lives destroyed , however i would have supported the pentagon being hit by something not carrying civilians, lots of evil in that 5 sided building

1. Where is the poll option for 'load of bollox'?

2. It's been done to death. The most ridiculous thing is claims that a missile was fired just before plane 1 hit the first tower. FFS. The plane was travelling at 300mph or so. And someone in lower Manhattan managed to launch a missile which struck the tower milliseconds before the plane?:rolleyes:

3. As for a missile attack on the Pentagon...............but the FBI are fuelling this speculation by refusing to release the tapes it confiscated from surrounding CCTV cameras.

And let's not compare - for a microsecond - America and the scum that is the Taliban in the same breath please. Were it not for Uncle Sam, many terrorist-sympathising keyboard warriors on fora like these would not have the freedom to criticise in the first instance.

Time and again its troops have bailed out the world (and yes, they've royally fcuked up on occasion too - nobody's perfect). But given a choice between people who promote democracy and a crowd of AKA-toting bully-boys who belittled an entire country (in particular its women) then I know who I'd choose - every time.

Be careful what you wish for. Bin Laden himself quoted that "we love death - the US (write the West) loves life. that is the difference between us". Says it all really.

The world would be a far darker place without America. Never forget it.

4leto

All that ancient knowledge lost on the conspiracy theorists, they have been heating metal since the copper age to make it soft and malleable, that is nearly 10,000 years, yet they don't make the connection of hot steel (just in case they don't know A METAL)= soft and weakened steel.

I will spell it out further the twin towers and "building number seven" were a steel (a metal) supported structures.

Get it yet.

Orando Broom

4leto wrote: »

It doesn't have to melt the steel it just has to soften the steel, like a blacksmith heating a horseshoe to bend it. Or a plumber heating a copper pipe to bend into shape.

Woah, woah slow up there science boy with your facts and knowledge!!! None of that horseshoe stuff has ever been conclusively proven!

Horses wearing shoes!! What next, carrying people!!!?? Ha! you're a real live one!!

Penn

keithob wrote: »

Can i prove it... no - cos they have done a good job on ensuring that.

It's almost like you need more than access to Google to become an investigator. Who knew?

Seachmall

keithob wrote: »

Credo quia absurdum

FYP

--Kaiser--

keithob wrote: »

Im 100% convinced that it was an inside job.

Can i prove it... no - cos they have done a good job on ensuring that.

The first line and second line are a contradiction in my book, but that's me, I'm a rational thinker

Wibbs

The twin towers coming down like that I have no issue with. It was a "bad" design in the event. Maximised from the get go for floor space so all, or most of the weight was supported by the outer skin. Kinda like a monocoque car as opposed to a car with a separate chassis. Lose enough of the "skin" and it's gonna crumple and fall and go down very fast. Building 7 still intrigues me I have to admit. It's of a different design. More a building with an internal "chassis" so the conspiracy nuts have some sort of a point there. No other building with such a structure as failed so catastrophically due to fire, nor so quickly. I personally watched that skyscraper in Madrid http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG burn for over a day from top to bottom pretty much. The whole thing was a column of fire. And while bits of it fell off it stayed standing. They had to demolish it in the end.

Now while I have a head scratcher about building 7 I'm not going with conspiracy, well not of the 911 kind. I'd be going with conspiracy of the crappy building(and fire) regulations and design kind. Those who may be responsible for that if they exist are likely very happy for some to believe it was a controlled demolition. It shouldn't have failed like that.

I would have more faith in the notion that certain elements in the US government had an inkling of something afoot. Something useful in prosecution of political aims. I really doubt they realised the scale of it though. I defo have faith that there was a lot of bullshít going on with the linking of Saddam Hussain and Iraq in all of this though. Weapons of mass destruction my arse. Links to Al Qaeda my arse. If there was a false flag type "conspiracy" going on, that was it. Hitting Afghanistan I can see, but Iraq? Utter BS there.

Augmerson

Conspiracy of Negligence. They knew well in advance that an attack was likely - there is tonnes of evidence pointing our various American and other international intelligence agencies who knew about an impending attack - but let it happen as it gave them carte blanche to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq and seriously curb civil freedoms.