Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What exactly happened on 911?
Comments
-
1. The 'official" story, while it may not add up, as you put it, is so much more likely to be the real explanation than the myriad of competing alternatives.pablodiablo wrote: »1. the official story doesn't add up
2. there are people out there with questions that have never been properly answered
3. possibly the most corrupt administration ever just happened to be in office
2. This is irrelevant
3. Yes. So what is more likely: they engineered a conspiracy (the purpose of which is unclear) which would have had to involve thousands of people, none of whom have come forward to reveal their part in it, or that they realised that they were caught out despite all their so-called preparedness and engaged in a huge arse-covering to maintain their credibility?
I will admit, my first thoughts on seeing the terrible carnage on that day, and afterwards, were: "this has to be some kind of inside job". That, I think, is the natural human response to an event of such magnitude.
Since then I have read and watched a lot of evidence for and against the "official" explanation. My take from all of that is that, yes, there are some inconsistencies in reporting arond what went on, but there isn't enough evidence, IMO, to link all of those separate inconsistencies so that they provide a significant weight of evidence. The "questions" that are often used are too widespread, a misreporting here, a theory there. They do not gel.
Those whose opinions differ ask these questions; often, I think, without considering how they relate to one another.
Now, to collect my paycheck from the NWO. * rubs hands *0 -
Hoop66 I respect you outlook on the events of the day everybody is entitled to their opinion it's just for me there are big questions that have never been properly dealt with. I know people will say to me well what do you think happened and all I can do is put forward a theory on what I think happened. I wont have any hard evidence on my theory cause it's just that a theory.
What I do have an issue with is the official story. When so many members of the Commision have publicly voiced they're frustration at government interference then alarm bells should be ringing. If let's say there was a huge terrorist attack on Ireland in the morning would you be happy if it took 441 days for the government to investigate it? Then when the investigation happened it was a sham? If as you say they were caught un-prepared on the day in question how come people in key positions were given promotions instead of being reprimanded (Gen. Myers and Gen. Eberhart) in fact no senior figures in the CIA FBI or NSA have ever been held accountable for they're sloppy work.0 -
pablodiablo wrote: »If as you say they were caught un-prepared on the day in question how come people in key positions were given promotions instead of being reprimanded (Gen. Myers and Gen. Eberhart) in fact no senior figures in the CIA FBI or NSA have ever been held accountable for they're sloppy work.
This is probably the least surprising outcome of all. A corrupt and self-serving government fails to call to account senior members for their incompetence? Standard practice isn't it?
What I would like to see, from someone such as yourself who distrusts the official explanation, is a specific theory as to what happened. Who did what, and how these things were accomplished.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that, either through incompetence or design, those who should have been protecting the US from such an attack allowed it to happen. But I draw the line at it actually being planned and executed by US personnel.
Like the old saying goes "conspiracy, or cock-up?"0 -
I outlined a few possibilities earlier in one of my posts but as I say these are only possibilities. Until there is an impartial and proper investigation into what exactly happened we can only speculate as to what really happened. Unfortunately I can never see the day where the truth will be told. I think if any person was to take a fair and objective look at the official story of the events that day they would come up with a whole host of questions that would be rather difficult to answer.0
-
Again, can we try to keep this thread about alternative theories on 911?
Any airline crash throws up discrepencies, unexplained issues, people protecting their jobs, etc - that in itself does not mean there is some alternative conspiracy theory.
No hole-picking, just decent theories please with their own evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
just a question jonny do you believe the official story?0
-
which would have had to involve thousands of people, none of whom have come forward to reveal their part in it,
Pentagon reopening probe into employees allegedly tied to child porn
The Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service will review 264 cases, according to spokesman Gary Comerford. The department had stopped the reviews because of a lack of resources, he said'
Among the employees identified in a series of reports released by the department were some listed as having security clearances at the top secret level or higher. They worked for groups within the department such as the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, two of the country's top intelligence agencies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/15/pentagon.child.porn/index.html?_s=PM:CRIME
well here are at least 264 mouths that would never utter a word even if you flew a plane in to their grandmothers house
Maybe that will answer the question of why did nobody say anything0 -
Which is why I then asked you whether or not you agreed with the conclusions of the commission report.Simply if the 911commission report is part of the official narrative then the there are holes in it
You said there were none
They were told lies, but they were still able to get to the truth of the matter.
And all of the plot holes and questions often are answered many times over some people just ignore the answers.pablodiablo wrote: »Well King Mob there are many reasons for so many conspiracy theories about 911
1. the official story doesn't add up
2. there are people out there with questions that have never been properly answered
And as jonny keeps pointing out, no one is able to provide any alternative explanation.
But that's what you seem to be doing. You've concluded that it was an inside job even though that theory is vague, nonsensical and full of far more holes than you can point out about the official story. And then when asked about this holes, you cannot provide any answers.pablodiablo wrote: »i'm sure other people have even more reasons. That is why conspiracy theories are theories cause we the people have been denied the truth. You said we should just make stuff up and just believe what the conspiracy theorists say- yet you believe the official story?
Leaving aside the fact that most of your problems with the official story have been addressed years ago and are all basis on misinformed opinion, why they should any buy into the conspiracy when it is much much worse than what you believe the official story to be?
Again, the commission were told lies, but that did not stop them from getting to the facts. If this wasn't the case, how were they able to tell that they were being lied to?pablodiablo wrote: »The chairs of both the 911 commission and the official congressional inquiry into 911 said the investigation had been compromised by government interference so where does that leave the official story? If the government had nothing to fear from the investigation why did they interfere with it?
And again, as I said, people did have reason to lie and interfere. It's what people in "the most corrupt government ever" would do to cover their asses when thy **** up and want to avoid blame.0 -
So King Mob if the official story is what we are left with do you think that 19 middle eastern men armed with box-cutters and improvised knives brought down a multi-billion dollar defense system taking instruction from a bearded man in a cave somewhere? It really is the stuff of Hollywood...0
-
pablodiablo wrote: »Then you have Bush sitting in a classroom reading a book when it was fairly obvious the country was under attack and there was no attempt made to secure the President!
Sigh. They couldn't just bundle bush into a car, his route to the airport needed to be secured. And there was no evidence that Bush was in immediate danger.There are a whole host of things that just don't add up about that day and the aftermath. The pilots were regarded as average to poor by there flight instructors but yet in the case of the Pentagon the pilot managed to fly a plane of that size and at speed keep it about 50feet off the ground and hit its target....
The pilot was more than capable of the act of crashing a plane.from the time the first plane hit to when all four planes were accounted for NORAD had ample time to scramble fighter jets in fact if contact is lost with a plane by air traffic control it is standard operating procedure for NORAD to scramble jets.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
I've already posted this once before on this thread. You can listen to the actual NORAD tapes. NORAD don't keep alert fighters on stand by as if it was the battle of Britain. At least they didn't pre 9/11.Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 jets were scrambled 67 times...but not on sept 11...
Jets were scrambled on 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Intercept_time
Those were intercepts of planes outside of US airspace about to enter.I guess a lot of people just want to ignore a lot of the evidence. It's just easier to believe what we are told and not to ask the hard questions but the very fact that the administration in question has a proven track record of lying should be taken into account also when looking at the evidence.
Okay. Please provide the evidence you have to support your claim that 9/11 was a inside job0 -
Advertisement
-
No, as they didn't bring down anything but buildings. They just managed to slip though the cracks of slow, out dated, bureaucratic and incompetent defense system.pablodiablo wrote: »So King Mob if the official story is what we are left with do you think that 19 middle eastern men armed with box-cutters and improvised knives brought down a multi-billion dollar defense system taking instruction from a bearded man in a cave somewhere? It really is the stuff of Hollywood...
The alternative you seem to want to suggest is a conspiracy of millions of people who organised a ridiculously and spectacularly complex attack which involved ordering jets to fire on the pentagon and secret demolition teams managing to wire up entire skyscrapers. But then on the same ticket were too stupid to do it without glaring plot holes.
Could you please go back and address the points I made?0 -
pablodiablo wrote: »just a question jonny do you believe the official story?
Yup
I watched it live on television, which I didn't switch off for about 8 days. No one was "told" what happened, it was all pieced together over those days, by everyone, we all saw the same footage, an ex colleague of mine was directly involved and was lucky to survive.
Later I started watching documentaries, including "Loose change" and several others, I thought (at the time) that the 911 commission report was a white wash, and for awhile I believed a missile hit the Pentagon. Again, nothing too deep.
However that was during my own period of very heavy skepticism and over-cynicism toward the Bush gov, etc.
Presently there doesn't seem to be any alternative theory that has any weight to it.
I thought this would be very high priority.0 -
Sixtus I think you will find that the failure of the secret service to remove the president to a secure location (even the relative safety of the presidential limousine) instantly is very alarming. These are the men that are supposed to put they're bodies on the line for his very life yet for approx. 29 mins after the 2nd tower was hit he remained in the public eye? This leads me to two assumptions either the secret service acted incompetently (which doesn't wash with me) or they somehow knew that he wasn't in danger.
In regards to your comment that the pilot was more then capable of crashing the plane I think you will find many pilots (both military and commercial) would strongly disagree with you. These hijackers trained in a Cessna 172 and as I said earlier were best described as average to poor by they're instructors. Yet they seemed to be right at home in the cockpits of commercial jetliners? Numerous experienced pilots are of the opinion that it would take a very skilled pilot to even hit the towers not to mention the supposed maneuver at the pentagon.
The NORAD tapes make for interesting reading. It appears they finally got they're story straight after years of changing it. It's hard to believe the almost comedic communication between NORAD and the air traffic controllers. An interesting character worth reading up on is Gen.Eberhart the NORAD Commander it's hard to imagine he actually got a promotion after all this.
When I mention that a lot of people want to ignore the evidence I meant this in relation to the evidence of the official story. Anomalies such as how could television reports claim WTC7 had fallen half an hour before it did? In fact the very collapse of WTC7 is highly suspicious how could 2 planes bring down 3 buildings? Has the removal of evidence from the scene ever been properly addressed? Has anyone ever seen footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon? It has cctv cameras covering every approach. There should be as much footage of this attack as there is of the towers.
King Mob going on the nature of your previous posts i'm presuming you believe the official story? In my opinion the official story is just a theory like all the other theories out there. In fact the very people who gave us this official story have the following to say.
911 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton " I don't believe for a minute we got everything right" that the Commission was set up to fail,that people should keep asking questons about 911,and that the 911 debate should continue.
911 Commissioner Timothy Roemer "We were extremely frustrated at the false statements we were getting"
911 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned saying "It is a national scandal". "This investigation is now compromised" " One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 911 issue is so important to America. But this White house wants to cover it up".
911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said " There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version...We didn't have access".
Senior Counsel to the Commission John Farmer had this to say "At some level of our government ,at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". "The story of 911 itself,to put it mildly was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened".
The very men behind the official story don't even believe it....0 -
I have already stated this clearly and concisely.pablodiablo wrote: »King Mob going on the nature of your previous posts i'm presuming you believe the official story?
But all of these quotes are taken out of context.pablodiablo wrote: »In my opinion the official story is just a theory like all the other theories out there. In fact the very people who gave us this official story have the following to say.
John Farmer believes the Commission report:pablodiablo wrote: »Senior Counsel to the Commission John Farmer had this to say "At some level of our government ,at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". "The story of 911 itself,to put it mildly was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened".
The very men behind the official story don't even believe it....
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/John Farmer- Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.
So again, the point I am making is that the conspiracy explanation for this hole (or any other "holes" in the official story) does not make any sense.
Why do you think these people are calling into question the offical story? Why are they not in on it?
What about the conclusions they make in the commission report that still state that it was not an inside job and do not agree with any of the conspiracy explanations you are suggesting? Are these also lies?
If you don't know the answers to these questions, say so as that is the point I am making.0 -
This thread is for alternative theories as to what happened on 9110
-
I don't know anything except what everybody else knows but on the question of conspiracy's , I don't believe the USA government would conspire to murder 3000+ of it citizens but you do have to question their home security back then and how easy it was for Al Qaeda to carry it out proving that fortress America ,with all it's millions spent on CIA/FBI agencies , wasn't as secure and sophisticated as it had led the world to believe it was .0
-
I don't know anything except what everybody else knows but on the question of conspiracy's , I don't believe the USA government would conspire to murder 3000+ of it citizens but you do have to question their home security back then and how easy it was for Al Qaeda to carry it out proving that fortress America ,with all it's millions spent on CIA/FBI agencies , wasn't as secure and sophisticated as it had led the world to believe it was .
Why not? Assuming they wouldn't get caught . They've trained death squads the world over for murder. Unless they value human life with a US passport over human life without one for some reason.0 -
It's possible ,they have total control of everything and the question of secret society's pulling the real strings of US government has been around for decades but if they have done it , would they have wanted to be humiliated on such a scale so as to show the world ( the illusion ) of how weak America really was ? I for one found it very strange that as the Twin towers were falling down Bin Laden's family were flying out of country .Brown Bomber wrote: »Why not? Assuming they wouldn't get caught . They've trained death squads the world over for murder. Unless they value human life with a US passport over human life without one for some reason.0 -
In my own opinion KingMob I believe that the commission were always going to produce a report that wouldn't implicate the government regardless of what they uncovered in they're investigation. There was never a chance that the Commission was going to issue a report that suggested a government cover-up or involvement in the attacks. I believe that the government got the report they wanted.0
-
But this just raises even more holes in addition to the ones you already have not answered.pablodiablo wrote: »In my own opinion KingMob I believe that the commission were always going to produce a report that wouldn't implicate the government regardless of what they uncovered in they're investigation. There was never a chance that the Commission was going to issue a report that suggested a government cover-up or involvement in the attacks. I believe that the government got the report they wanted.
If the commission were in on it, why did they speak out?
Why didn't the commission just say that all of the stuff they were told was the truth?
Or why couldn't they have been feed faked evidence?
Why did they come up with different lies to cover up the conspiracy if they weren't in the conspiracy?
Why have a commission at all?
All of these questions you are not able to answer are showing Jonny's point. Just poking holes in the official story does not provide you with an alternative explanation. And the explanation you want people to believe is nonsensical and full of even more holes.
So why do you not have any issues about the holes in the conspiracy theory?
Do all of the questions that you've been unable to answer not make it as bad of the official story?0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe that the Commission started off with the best intentions of uncovering what happened that day. When they publicly stated they were been lied to I think the government took more of an active role in the investigation and unduly influenced the Commission. As regards why they even had a Commission I think they had to seen to make some effort at an investigation. The question I would ask is why was the government so slow in starting an investigation? Why didn't they set up a commission in the days following 911? As you believe the official story can you tell me what happened to WTC7? How was it reported as fallen half an hour before it did? What happened at the Pentagon? Where is the cctv footage? How come the damage to the Pentagon doesn't add up with the size of the plane that impacted? If they were so interested in an investigation how come they got rid of so much of the evidence straight away?0
-
There are explanations for all of those things, but the point of the thread is the alternative explanations.pablodiablo wrote: »The question I would ask is why was the government so slow in starting an investigation? Why didn't they set up a commission in the days following 911? As you believe the official story can you tell me what happened to WTC7? How was it reported as fallen half an hour before it did? What happened at the Pentagon? Where is the cctv footage? How come the damage to the Pentagon doesn't add up with the size of the plane that impacted? If they were so interested in an investigation how come they got rid of so much of the evidence straight away?
Please take these holes, or even some of them, and explain why they happened using a conspiracy.0 -
pablodiablo wrote: »I believe that the Commission started off with the best intentions of uncovering what happened that day. When they publicly stated they were been lied to I think the government took more of an active role in the investigation and unduly influenced the Commission. As regards why they even had a Commission I think they had to seen to make some effort at an investigation. The question I would ask is why was the government so slow in starting an investigation? Why didn't they set up a commission in the days following 911? As you believe the official story can you tell me what happened to WTC7? How was it reported as fallen half an hour before it did? What happened at the Pentagon? Where is the cctv footage? How come the damage to the Pentagon doesn't add up with the size of the plane that impacted? If they were so interested in an investigation how come they got rid of so much of the evidence straight away?
Not only that much of the report is based on the supposed statements of supposed Al Qaeda who gave their statements under torture. The 911 Commision only received these torture induced statements 3rd hand, they weren't allowed to interview the so-called Al Qaeda members directly.0 -
This is a thread about people's own personal alternative theories as to what really happened on 911.
By alternative theory, I mean, not along the lines of the official story.
If you want to post discrepancies, holes, coincidences, unexplained situations, etc in the offical story, please either start another thread on that or use one of the existing.
Again, this is a thread to put forward alternative theories as to what happened that day, based preferably on their own evidence.0 -
i too am unsure if you can say "george bush and co directly planned it"
because the truth would have been whistle -blowed a long time ago by enemies of the united states ...
however...when you look at the entire event , you cant but smell a giant rat in the whole story .....
1)the hijackers ...show me more video footage of the hijackers in the airport on the morning of the event ....
2)to this day , no proper (AND I MEAN PROPER) footage of hani hanjour executing that miraculous turn and slamming into the pentagon ....instead of that grainy 6 shot video clip of what looks like something smaller hitting the pentagon......and also where the back "fin" hits the building and dosent even break the windows ..
3)HOW..HOW..HOW...did hani hanjour get to within striking distance of a major u.s military target without being intercepted by us forces ....and this is a long time after the twin towers were hit....thats where the giant rat is .
4)why were bush and cheney allowed to not testify under oath ........
5)2.3 trillion stated missing from the pentagon on the day before 9/11...the bext day that very part of the building was hit with some of the people investigating it killed after hanjours remarkable sky turn that defied experienced pilots beliefs
theres other things like larry silverstein and stock put options and all other sorts of things with the twin towers but the pentagon is the biggest con
i believe certain people inside the bush admin knew this was gonna happen but let it happen to perpetuate a false war inside the middle east ....and the the draft was already in place before 9/11 happened..
you dont have to be a truther to be objective about 9/11 ..0 -
north_star_33 wrote: »i too am unsure if you can say "george bush and co directly planned it"
because the truth would have been whistle -blowed a long time ago by enemies of the united states ...
however...when you look at the entire event , you cant but smell a giant rat in the whole story .....
1)the hijackers ...show me more video footage of the hijackers in the airport on the morning of the event ....
It doesn't exist sorry.2)to this day , no proper (AND I MEAN PROPER) footage of hani hanjour executing that miraculous turn and slamming into the pentagon ....instead of that grainy 6 shot video clip of what looks like something smaller hitting the pentagon......and also where the back "fin" hits the building and dosent even break the windows ..
The turn was not miraculous. It was a slow steady wide turn while descending. It's common for pilots. of which Hanjour was trained and qualified pilot.
The pentagon is a massive structure the scale of the building makes the aircraft look smaller. And the windows were smashed.3)HOW..HOW..HOW...did hani hanjour get to within striking distance of a major u.s military target without being intercepted by us forces ....and this is a long time after the twin towers were hit....thats where the giant rat is .
For starts lots of airplanes get that close to the pentagon, it's very close to a major international airport.
NORAD were scrambling jets for multiple hijacking in the busiest airspace in the world. They did their best.4)why were bush and cheney allowed to not testify under oath ........
Hypothetical question. Do you think if Bush and Cheney were complicit in the attacks of 9/11 do you really think that they'd feel compelled to tell the truth because they're "under oath".5)2.3 trillion stated missing from the pentagon on the day before 9/11...the bext day that very part of the building was hit with some of the people investigating it killed after hanjours remarkable sky turn that defied experienced pilots beliefs
You'll find many experienced pilots don't think there was anything remarkable about what Hanjour did. They consider it reckless but not amazing.
As to the 2.3 trillion. The money did not disappear the press conference about the 2.3 trillion was discussing poor accountancy and management practices in the pentagon which led to a total over the course of decades of 2.3 trillion in missing equipment etc......theres other things like larry silverstein and stock put options and all other sorts of things with the twin towers but the pentagon is the biggest con
i believe certain people inside the bush admin knew this was gonna happen but let it happen to perpetuate a false war inside the middle east ....and the the draft was already in place before 9/11 happened..
you dont have to be a truther to be objective about 9/11 ..
It would help if you looked at both sides before you announce you are objective.0 -
i have looked at both sides
ive been looking at it for years.....
and again i say..show me the video evidence of hani hanjour executing that turn to hit the pentagon ..show me mobile phone footage ...show me cctv from the pentagon ......show me cctv from the surrounding buildings...........
show me anything that shows hani hanjour hitting the pentagon (im not denying the fact totally , i just like to see evidence of it)
and as for bush and cheney....i think that thats a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 .....i said above that bush was probably not behind ..but they know something and they got away with it ....
some truthers may be wack jobs......but i still think they have it right with the claim that people had inside knowledge of this event....0 -
Why in the conspiracy version of events did they not have it set up to capture the CCTV footage you're looking for?north_star_33 wrote: »and again i say..show me the video evidence of hani hanjour executing that turn to hit the pentagon ..show me mobile phone footage ...show me cctv from the pentagon ......show me cctv from the surrounding buildings...........
It seems like such a thing would be simple to do by turning a few cameras and having a few guys with video cameras (phone cameras were not as widespread in 2001). Especially since you are saying that such a lapse in evidence is a dead give away.
The point of this thread was not to just rehash the same old holes that conspiracy theorists have been picking at fruitlessly for years, but to provide an explanation for those holes that shows a consistent, plausible alternative theory.
Not a single person who believes in the conspiracy has been able to provide that.0 -
Yes. Obviously. If they lied under oath they would perjure themselves - a felony. Clearly their "special arrangement" where they didn't have to be sworn in suggests that they intended to lie.Hypothetical question. Do you think if Bush and Cheney were complicit in the attacks of 9/11 do you really think that they'd feel compelled to tell the truth because they're "under oath".0 -
Advertisement
-
Planning an attack like 9/11 is a felony. Covering up anything about 9/11 is a felony.Brown Bomber wrote: »Yes. Obviously. If they lied under oath they would perjure themselves - a felony. Clearly their "special arrangement" where they didn't have to be sworn in suggests that they intended to lie.
Why would they care about perjury?
Why wouldn't they just commit perjury if it would make the hoax more convincing?0
Advertisement