Voices
in
Japan

poll

Ten years on, do you believe al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11?

226 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

226 Comments
Login to comment

Yes I do!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This is going to get ugly.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Pointless question. Bush did it blah blah blah Bin Laden did it blah blah blah ping pong going nowhere.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I thought Al Q. had claimed responsibility - haven't they?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

They did claim responsibility. Terror groups have a tendency to claim attacks they had nothing to do with, but the CIA has found some pretty convincing links - in fact, they found them before the attacks. There's a great New Yorker piece detailing the CIA investigation of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11.

-1 ( +1 / -1 )

No I don't. What happened to building 7? Why does over 1200 architects and engineers are saying buildings don't fall the way they did at the event? Sorry to say, but if you believe the official story, you're stupid.

-1 ( +9 / -11 )

I am past caring. The whole thiing was down to poor international policy mostly by the US but many others including my home country the UK. Now we have turmoil in the Arab world a world recession and countries under foreign military control. All of this could have been prevented decades ago.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

That two planes caused the Twin Towers and Building Number 7 to drop at almost free fall speed, not toppling but straight down is a physical impossibility. These were massive, well designed buildings. Of course, there are the traces of thermite (explosive used in controlled demolitions) found in the rubble.

As for who did it, I haven't a clue. I'm very interested to know.

I'd also like to know about the other stunt - the "plane" that flew into the most militarily sensitive and protected building probably on the planet, the Pentagon. On a flight plan deemed "almost impossible" by an expert pilot, this "plane" was apparently flown by a terrorist who flunked Cessna training. It landed, miraculously, in a part of the building being renovated, killing only a few expendable people.

Too many unanswered questions.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

To those who vote yes! i have some nice clean radidation free Land and House for sale 5 Km from the Daichi plant in Fukushima, oh! and Santa live in the North Pole!.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

We all know the facts from TV that two planes hit two buildings. Since the planes and the buildings were destroyed, there is no way of confirming who gave them the order to fly into buildings. It's not like they did a lot of explaining while they were flying.

We know that the pentagon had some kind of explosion (photos show a single round whole before the building collapsed). And we know that there was a big whole in the ground in PA. We don't have any photos or videos of either plane hitting those targets.

We know that transcripts from a grainy video of Osama bin Laden that he claimed responsibility. We know that although Bin Laden didn't claim to be working for the Afghanistan government, and that government didn't claim that they ordered Al Quida to declare war on the U.S., we know that Bush declared war on them, and later, on Iraq... which didn't claim to have anything to do with 9/11.

We know that in the last 10 years, thousands and thousands of Americans died in both wars, not to mention all the people in those countries that were invaded by America. We know that Terrorist bombings have not stopped in either country, and we know that most Americans are still forced to get all-but naked in order to travel by air, and that the airlines don't feel any safer now than they did after 9/11. We also know that in 10 years, the mysterious mass cache of WMD's that are supposed to be in Iraq have never been found.

I know that from the moment Bush was elected up until 9/11, he was considered a joke, and an embarrassment for his lack of speaking skills, and yet right after 9/11 until 2008, he was treated like a god who wasn't allowed to be questioned. Anyone who did question him was and still is considered to be anti-patriotic and those people could be arrested without due process according to the Patriot Act... much like the tyrants in Libya and Syria did with their people.

And we know that the price of oil has gone up incredibly, and it took almost 10 years to finally get someone to kill Obama.

What I don't have confidence in, is that Osama Bin Laden was working without support or that the CIA wasn't aware of his existence or his plans. I also don't have confidence to say that Bush didn't take advantage of the attack in NY to declare war on Iraq right after starting his war in Afghanistan so he could get oil money. After all, he owns lots of oil in Texas and his father was the one to put Hussein in Power back in the 80's under Reagan in order to put pressure on Iran.

I don't have proof that Bush, or his administration allowed the devastation to go on in order to start their war, just as there is no proof of a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. We have to accept the magic bullet explanation that two airplanes can bring down 3 buildings with the same speed and precision of controlled detonations. We have to accept that two other planes also crashed despite a lack of parts... (I don't buy that titanium engines can evaporate, though they weren't found in either the Pentagon building, nor the PA site).

So, 10 years after 9/11, I don't know if Osama Bin Laden is solely responsible for everything that happened during or since 9/11. Like JFK, we will probably never be allowed to know the truth in order to maintain the government's authority. We have to deal with things the way they are.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Baka, baka, baka, baka... In a plane crash parts disintegrate all the time. The heat from a jet fuel fire is around 5000 degrees, look up the temperture at which metal melts. The reason the towers came down vertically was because of the design. If you think that you are so smart, look up the design. It is only a matter of time that either we no need the oil of the middle east or China, Russia and the west will conclude that middle east has become too dangerous and eliminate the threat. If you like conspiracies, figure out why the west is playing around in Afganistan and Iraq when Russia and China both think consider Islam in its current form as the threat but they still trade with them for now.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

@ka_chan, do you even know what you're saying? Are you an architect? or engineer? Here's a video for you, watch what real experts are saying about "the design" of twin towers. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It's not exactly a mystery...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Bush had advance knowledge of 911 but didn't do anything to prevent it. The WTC buildings were brought down by hydrigen bombs (micro nukes). Look at all the hundreds of first responders who are suffering from blood and brain cancers. This was caused by the radiation of the bombs. A few days after 911, the level of tritium was almost 8 times higher than normal, meaning that nukes were used (nuclear reaction). Whether those planes were real or just holograms, I wouldn't know. But fires usually don't bring down a steel framed building. BBC and Fox news were actually reporting the collapse of WTC 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. lol. As for the perpetrators of this horrific event I'll keep my mouth shut. Some still believe fires brought down the WTC buildings. LOL.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

American Devil -

And we know that the price of oil has gone up incredibly, and it took almost 10 years to finally get someone to kill Obama.

Have they?

Already?

Praise the Lord!

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

ka_chan

The fuel would burn at nowhere near 5,000 degrees, actually, about 257° C (495° F), not high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

To those who vote yes! i have some nice clean radidation free Land and House for sale 5 Km from the Daichi plant in Fukushima, oh! and Santa live in the North Pole!.

If it wasn't Al-Qaida and their allies - then who? Do you have proof? I'm not dissing - just keen to know another theory (with very strong evidence) that isn't just conspiracy theory giggles...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That two planes caused the Twin Towers and Building Number 7 to drop at almost free fall speed, not toppling but straight down is a physical impossibility.

Please explain why this is. I am a scientist and it is perfectly reasonable to me that they collapsed as they did. And I am not interested in pseudo-science CT website links.

The fuel would burn at nowhere near 5,000 degrees, actually, about 257° C (495° F), not high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

Complete nonsense. A fire didn't bring down the twin towers, a fire and the amazingly massive force of two passenger jets hitting the towers near the top floors did. Only conspiracy theorists can't grasp this.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. (Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.)

0 ( +5 / -5 )

OK, so we've got planes that might be holograms, we've got hydrogen bombs and we've got building designs that actually specify being able to withstand fully loaded 707s crashing into it.

I'm halfway convinced ;-) Just gotta figure out WHY?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@patawan, If you know your physics, then you would know there would be no way for those buildings to fall in freefall speeds. Falling top floors would hit the floor below and it would create a resistance. if you're interested about the subject, watch the video of engineers and architects http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032# it's a long video, but worth watching if you really wanna know the truth. These people are certified engineers and architects, it's their job to build a strong building that won't collapse on itself. Yes, even if a plane hits it. Look at the immense internal columns, to suggest that kerosine fire had melted the core of the building all the way to the first floor is psuedo science to me.

Also have you heard of Building#7? It went down about 2 hours after two towers went down. Do you have an opinion on how that happened? Have you seen it going down? Do you think fires brought down that building too? I don't mean to attack you ideas, just curious myself that how a man with a knowledge of physics would suggest that plane impact and fire on couple of floors can result to whole 110 floors being pulverized.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Lets not forget who funded the so called terrorist organization 'Al Qaeda' into existence. Lets also not overlook that this same organization is now on-board with the program and is helping out in Libya. Head scratching stuff. So many coincidences, alas no answers. Bin Laden's investments in George W's oil company...hmmm. John Hinckley, friend of the Bushes?? hmmmm. The allegations against Prescot Bush... hmmmm. But, this isn't about the Bushes, it's much much bigger than that.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Of course, it is also theoretically possible that Al Qaeda operatives sneaked into the twin towers and planted bombs the night before 9/11.

That would explain why the concrete exploded into fine dust rather than lumps. And it might explain the explosions that witnesses say they heard:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

Or the molten steel found at the bottom of the rubble:

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/molten-steel-found-at-ground-zero-weeks-after-911/

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Of course, it is also theoretically possible that Al Qaeda operatives sneaked into the twin towers and planted bombs the night before 9/11.

Of course that brings up the question of why would Al Qaeda drives plane into the buildings they already planted bombs?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@BurakuminDes - Unfortunately, there's no hard evidence that anyone did it. There is evidence, however, that "Al Qaeda" came into existence through foreign funding. Cue the trolls. :) You may need to take the red pill on this one and do your own research. Very time consuming though I warn you. The blue is probably the easier option.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

We're still not sure if al-Qaida is even real.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

BurakuminDesSep. 05, 2011 - 02:22PM JST

If it wasn't Al-Qaida and their allies - then who?

It is not necessary to prove someone else did it to prove one didn't do it.

Do you have proof?

Oh sure. All of us have command centers in our house so that our global spies can report to us easier. Hang on while I go into my high-tech spy-ops basement bunker and have my team of secretaries locate file 3,829,321 and I will be right along with the proof shortly.

Pah! None of us have direct proof of jack diddly squat. All we got is what we are told, and so much of that is utter crap, whether this topic or other, that the only reason anybody believes anything is because it stresses the crap out them to no believe anything. Its why most people believe in God. Proof? For us, there really isn't any either way.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Of course that brings up the question of why would Al Qaeda drives plane into the buildings they already planted bombs?

Having a plan B is something that most people learn the hard way to make from having plan A fail on them. You will never guess what happened in 1993 at the WTC.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I just laugh at the konspiracy clownz here.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

@pawatan

Please explain why this is. I am a scientist and it is perfectly reasonable to me that they collapsed as they did. And I am not >interested in pseudo-science CT website links.

Please, if you a scientist specializing in this field - please explain why you think they would.

I've tried with a number of large models made of similar materials and as of yet can not reproduce the same results. Turning everything to dust is proving particularly tricky. Please share your knowledge.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@HumanTarget

here's a great New Yorker piece detailing the CIA investigation of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11.

Why did they need to investigate - Brzezinski could have told them everything they needed to know. If you dig deep enough the footage exists of him giving a speech to them. At that time they were need for a different task.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Of course that brings up the question of why would Al Qaeda drives plane into the buildings they already planted bombs?

Because there is no way the planes alone would actually bring the buildings down.

Perhaps, also, the planes needed to be COMPLETELY destroyed.

For some reason.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

There's no question they at least had PARTIAl responsibility, and that simply cannot be denied. Complete responsibility? Now that's up for debate, and will be for a long time to come if previous conspiracies are any measure to go by. One thing is a pretty safe bet -- if the US government had anything to do with it, and they may have, it'll probably never be known in our lifetimes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@smithinjapan valid points. the question now then is what is the US government? Who's agenda does the deaths of 1000s of American sons and daughters really serve? Is it as many believe a corporation? Does the war of 1812 give us any clues? Was the outcome of this war the reason Washington DC is a city state? Not dissimilar to the City of London and the Vatican?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Smithinjapan-san -

I'm sure it is as you say.

Once the people concerned are all six foot (two meters) under, we might perhaps be allowed to know the truth.

And people will say, "Well, why didn't you do something about it? Why didn't you protest? Why didn't you topple the regime of liars? Impeach Bush? Throw Cheney into irons?"

But none of us will be around to see it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

But none of us will be around to see it.

another famous rallying cry of the paranoids out there. Deep down, they know they are wrong, so they proudly crow that they will be proven right - in the next life.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Please, if you a scientist specializing in this field - please explain why you think they would.

This is ridiculously easy - they would because they did. The proof is what everyone saw on TV. If someone is asserting that the towers didn't fall due to the really obvious reasons they might - the plane crashes, fires, incredible stresses on the buildings - then they need to prove their point, not the other way around.

I've tried with a number of large models made of similar materials and as of yet can not reproduce the same results. Turning everything to dust is proving particularly tricky. Please share your knowledge.

What do you mean 'models of similar materials'? That doesn't make any sense. You're telling me you made models of the twin towers - the whole site - and crashed/exploded airplanes into them? If the answer is 'no', then why would you expect similar results?

And why WOULDN'T you expect everything to turn to dust? You would expect something else after being smashed into by passenger jets, burned, and collapsed hundreds of meters with thousands of tons of building falling on itself? Really? Calculate a simple model and look at the resultant forces due to gravity alone. They are HUGE with this amount of mass and height. And that's not even accounting for the other stresses.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I wonder if the conspiracy people also believe that the first jihadist attack on the WTC (in 1993) was also arranged by the CIA (or whoever they blame in their imagination). And how about all the other thousands of jihadist terror attacks all around the world? As if it was necessary to fake one.....

The truther movement is so ridiculous.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@pawatan thank you very much. You'll find most experiments on a smaller scale can produce similar results or at very least can give us an indication as to how a substance/material would react under similar circumstances. You'll find that jet fuel after the initial explosion burns off very quickly. I admire you're belief system.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I don't know. Where does Scooby Doo fall on this?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Hikozaemon - Don't know but Thelma reckons it was an inside job and the janitor is to blame for letting them in. She's usually right.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@WilliB Please don't generalize. People that ask questions are not necessarily part of a 'movement'. However labeling them thus can aid in their persecution. How extensive is your own research in these matters? You offer only ridicule to this debate.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

incredibly stupid question. yes.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

You've seen the videos. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds.

To collapse 85 or more floors, the upper floors would have had to smash through the lower floors. If this had happened at the rate of one floor per second, it would have taken well over sixty seconds.

But, if you do the maths, the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. Gravity wouldn't do that.

The only possible way it could have happened is with explosives.

It's very interesting that the only real counter to this is to try to shrug it off with cries of "conspiracy theory," or "trufer!" The tendency seems to try to suggest that anyone who doesn't believe the official line is gullible and believes anything they are told.

I believe the opposite to be true.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Don't know if Americans really need a terrorist group to blame cause they're perfectly capable of destroying themselves (ass well as other nations).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

You'll find most experiments on a smaller scale can produce similar results or at very least can give us an indication as to how a substance/material would react under similar circumstances. You'll find that jet fuel after the initial explosion burns off very quickly. I admire you're belief system.

Sorry? What belief system are you talking about? Are you saying there weren't fires? These were caused by the crashes and the jet fuel. Of course if there were only jet fuel the fires would have burnt quickly. But it wasn't only jet fuel, it was everything in the building + jet fuel. Or do you think it's impossible to have a fire in a skyscraper?

You never answered my question. It was:

What do you mean 'models of similar materials'? That doesn't make any sense. You're telling me you made models of the twin towers - the whole site - and crashed/exploded airplanes into them? If the answer is 'no', then why would you expect similar results?

Please explain your experiments. If you take away the force of the jets (the major factor in the tower collapses) you haven't replicated a thing. What 'similar materials' are you talking about? The skyscrapers? They are made of many materials.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

johninnaha

But, if you do the maths, the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. Gravity wouldn't do that.

The only possible way it could have happened is with explosives.

Are you reading what you write? Explosives don't collapse a building - GRAVITY collapses a building. Explosions just destroy the support structures allowing gravity to do its job. This is how every building collapses.

In the case of the twin towers, the massive impacts of the passenger jets (mostly) + the fires (somewhat) + huge amounts of torque throughout the entire structure weakened the structure of the towers enabling gravity to do what gravity does. It looked like a controlled demolition because the mechanism of collapse is the same.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Lots of theories on HOW, but nothing yet on WHY - why would the CIA visit such destruction on their own people? To invade Iraq? Wouldn't require such destruction; just cry WMD. To declare war on Al-Qaeda? Enough reason already existed. To shore up their presence in the Middle East in anticipation of an increasingly aggressive China (as posited by an ex-German government minister)? Just expand their bases in Asia.

So if it was a conspiracy, what massive reason lay behind it?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@pawatan - you may scoff at my naivety but I created a structure from Iron, filled it with paper and wood then using jet fuel tried to melt the structure. Crude you may say and not a good simulation of the actual event I will agree but I had an itch to scratch. The outcome of my endeavors aided me in realizing that it was extremely difficult to melt metal using jet fuel and normal wood/plastic based materials. My mandate is not to prove you or others wrong or right. I feel we too easily let others do our reasoning and thinking for us. I am yet to find another instance in which a plane and or building has turned to dust in such a manner. So to say that it would obviously be so, is calling on some knowledge and or experience that the general populace of builders and engineers have never come across. Oh and don't forget a paper passport survived beautifully intact. Could it be gravity?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@hatsoff - yeah tough one I agree. I guess you've made one assumption though, you and I and the other proles on this board are some how the same people as the cia and the entity they serve. I don't mean to be rude, but throughout history ruling classes have reined tyranny, murdered, exploited, and tested upon there 'own' people. Listen to some of Huxley's conferences at Berkeley, you may be surprised.

p.s I am not saying the cia were involved btw - just it was the organization you mentioned.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

woundedsamurai:

" The outcome of my endeavors aided me in realizing that it was extremely difficult to melt metal using jet fuel "

And why would you want to melt the metal? Nobody ever claimed the jet fuel "melted" the metal in the WTC buildings. The steel loses its strength from a certain temperature, that is all that is needed to compromise the integrity of the building.

Some experiment...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

woundedsamurai1

I created a structure from Iron, filled it with paper and wood then using jet fuel tried to melt the structure. Crude you may say and not a good simulation of the actual event I will agree but I had an itch to scratch. The outcome of my endeavors aided me in realizing that it was extremely difficult to melt metal using jet fuel and normal wood/plastic based materials.

I'm not scoffing at your naivety, but you are missing the crucial ingredient for sure. The CT websites always talk about how impossible it is for fire to bring down a steel skyscraper. Most likely true; probably not impossible. But the huge forces of impact and resulting structural damage throughout the entire structure - the entire site - cannot be overlooked.

I feel we too easily let others do our reasoning and thinking for us. I am yet to find another instance in which a plane and or building has turned to dust in such a manner.

Try searching for other skyscrapers that have been impacted by passenger jets at such high speeds before. Right, it hasn't happened. The only similar accident is the old Empire State Building accident in the 30s or 40s, which was a much smaller prop driven plane, nowhere near the same forces.

Oh and don't forget a paper passport survived beautifully intact. Could it be gravity?

Hmm? Find the most violent plane wreck you can and you'll usually find some things intact. Look at the wreckage of NWA Flight 255 - as awful and destructive a wreck as can be imagined but a young girl actually survived it.

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=30273&d=1273801840

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Crazy Joe:

" The WTC buildings were brought down by hydrigen bombs (micro nukes) "

Fascinating. Can you tell us more about these microscopic hydrigen bombs (sic)? Also, what about your fellow conspiracy theorists who are touting a) controlled conventional demolition and b) death beams from satellites (I am sure there more versions...)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@woundedsamurai1 - not contesting your point about history, but my main point is that it's all well and good for people to point out how a plane couldn't do this or a building couldn't fall like that, but WHY would an organization (be it the CIA or whoever) visit such massive destruction on its own citizens? What was the motivation? We don't hear much - if anything - about that. And never anything credible. That's the let-down for me, otherwise I'm all ears.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@WilliB thanks Like I said the experience made me question how the buildings turned to dust that's all. We could ping pong on this one all night.I see no way they could have. And I'm not even gonna go near the building they numbered seven. Head scratching stuff. No name calling, I'm all open to hear theories of how these building were pulverized but the "official" one doesn't seem good enough for me. High standards? Give the guys a break? Maybe. Off to spend time with my girlfriend. Good luck with this.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@WilliB One last thing - I couldn't get near the temperatures necessarily to even weaken the structure btw. It really is quite difficult.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

woundedsamurai:

" I couldn't get near the temperatures necessarily to even weaken the structure btw "

I don´t know what you tried in with your brilliant little experiment, but in real life there are plenty of steel constructions which have collapsed from fire alone.... and that without the impact and fuel load of a jumbo jet. Check out the Kader toy factory in Singapore or the Windsor Building in Madrid, among others.

Are you saying your backyard science experiment proves that these were all government conspiracies too?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@hatsoff - To quote a scene from the matrix. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Maybe this is a good place to start. http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/32293538

I advise you listen to it all - point around 5:00 is especially relevant. Your not gonna get it straight away. Suspend disbelief. it takes time and lots, and I mean lots of research. When you get it - you'll get it. Happy studying. Watch out for pied pipers

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@WilliB

Are you saying your backyard science experiment proves that these were all government conspiracies too?

No I'm not. Just telling you that I made one.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

woundedsamurai:

" No I'm not. Just telling you that I made one. "

Oh. Except it proves nothing. So the point is?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@WilliB Never promised there be a point to every comment I post. You win - it was 22 muslims who conspired in a cave. We need to emulate their education system - ours is going to the dogs.:) .

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This whole issue has taken on the nature of a religious debate. Might as well spend one's time arguing which is the "one true faith" with fanatics, for all the logic or common sense you'd be getting...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do you have proof?

Oracle: Oh sure. All of us have command centers in our house so that our global spies can report to us easier. Hang on while I go into my high-tech spy-ops basement bunker and have my team of secretaries locate file 3,829,321 and I will be right along with the proof shortly.

I take your point, Oracle. So - you say it hasn't (or can't) be proven that Al Qaida executed this attack. What I am saying is there is no way CTs can prove it was any other group. Heck - I've yet to read even another hypothesis on here! I've read about the "holograms", "mini-nukes" and the rest - just throw a name/group/government out there if you don't believe Al Qaida was behind it - I promise I won't laugh. I'm a skeptic (even though I voted "Yes" I'm open to any ideas) at heart and am genuinely interested.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Elbuda Mexicano - yeah used to be quite friendly and all - real pity that. Though that said, those Libyan Muslim types seem real chuffed that they've been delivered to freedom, safety and the IMF. Wonder if they made them flags or they were hand outs. You might want to watch 'wag the dog'.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Although the debate on How the buildings could be brought down... I admit it's moot. They did come down. But as 'Hatsoff' pointed out, the question is why would an organization try to bring down the buildings.

Here is one possibility for a government to allow or to encourage such devastation to happen.

Number 1 reason: It galvanizes the country into accepting anything and everything the government tells them. Americans are very self-centered, but when an attack comes from abroad, as in both Pearl Harbor, 1941, and NY 2001, We Americans will blindly follow our leaders into any war.

Before Pearl Harbor, the Congress would not allow FDR to join the war in Europe, yet after the Japanese attacked, FDR was allowed to wage war in the Pacific AND Europe! The Nazi's didn't attack Pearl Harbor, but it gave FDR the opportunity to do what he wanted.

And Before 9/11, very few people cared about what happened in other countries. Certainly very few cared about Somalia, when our soldiers were dying... BUT after 9/11, the U.S. Government was able to declare war on both Afghanistan AND IRAQ. Neither Country claimed that they had ordered the attacks on 9/11, and other countries couldn't even understand WHY Bush had such a hard on for going back into Iraq other than to get the oil. And no one in the States, gave it a thought. The magic word of WMD's was good enough in a time of war...

So why allow thousands of your own people to die? Easy. To achieve an agenda. The U.S. isn't even the first to do so. The British Prime Minister, after obtaining the Enigma, got intelligence that the Germans were going to bomb either of two cities. He could have had those cities prepared to fight back, or evacuated people in preparation. but doing so would reveal to the Germans that the Allies had broken their codes. Churchill chose... his governing body chose not to alert either city, and allow the bombers to come. Churchill believed that those who died, did so in order to bring the war to a quicker end, and save even more lives.

If its possible for one government to think that way, then its possible for G.W. Bush, Cheney, and whoever else to think similarly. Ask any supporter of the government's explanation, and I'm positive they will also accept that both wars were necessary, and the deaths of all those American Soldiers will eventually save the lives of so many more people in the future...

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@BurakuminDes Good on ya - open mind and all. Hit the canned laughter - How about the vatican? i.e a continuation of the roman empire which of course is a continuation of the last one. Just a hunch :) I'd forget 9/11 it's done. You'll get more of a clue if you look into court systems/admiralty law/noble orders etc - at least a whiff anyway.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

woundedsamurai:

" it was 22 muslims who conspired in a cave. "

Where do you get the cave from? Off-hand, Mohammed Atta, the leader, was studying engineering in Hamburg. The others came from educated backgrounds too. The courses in the flight academy in the US are well documented.

How do come up with stuff like "melting metal" and "caves" that nobody except the conspiracy people talk about?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

American Devil:

" So why allow thousands of your own people to die? Easy. To achieve an agenda. "

....the agenda to get bogged down in un-winnable and ruinous nation-building campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq?? Some agenda. Talk about ridiculous.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@WilliB - shame on you tryna put me in a group again.

How do come up with stuff like "melting metal" and "caves" that nobody except the conspiracy people talk about? Got it from ka_chan about the tenth comment in this thread. The heat from a jet fuel fire is around 5000 degrees, look up the temperture at which metal melts. Got the cave bit from Rumsfeld. He was big on it at the start. Think even Powell chimed in with it. Till it looked real silly though then they dropped it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@WilliB

....the agenda to get bogged down in un-winnable and ruinous nation-building campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq?? Some >agenda. Talk about ridiculous.

You may need to be de-programmed. We can help, but it will take a some effort on your part. First step -- No TV. Get some old history books - restructure the past. This isn't about the US winning anything.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@WilliB

Actually, I believe they didn't think they would get bogged down. After the military success of the first war in Iraq (in which Bush Senior left Hussein in power), Bush Jr., Cheney and Rumsfeld, were sure that Iraq would be an easy win. And once Hussein was out of the picture, they likely believed that the grateful populous would happily hand over their oil rights and become democratic... Unfortunately, they underestimated the depth of hatred between the different groups and how quickly they would start creating effective improvised explosive devices that could kill American troops.

It's not a conspiracy theory to see that Bush was too quick to declare himself the winner in both wars, just because his tanks could beat the enemy tanks. Its very apparent from the news from the last 10 years that the U.S. Government has had very little success in getting the different groups to work together in Iraq, just as it has little success in eradicating the Taliban... which could retake Afghanistan the moment the U.S. leaves.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why is noone talking about WTC#7? Doesn't anyone know about it? What happened to it? All you official story believers, did you see it coming down? Would you say that fires brought it down? Just know that your ignorance is being counted on by the elite. They know they can do something like this and get away with it becuase most people will believe what TV is telling them. I would like one of you believers to make comment on WTC#7. Here's my comment: Obvious controlled demolution. ANd of course if that building was brought down in controlled demolution, so were the others.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Its U.S. Itself Is Responsible For 9/11 as They Self Built OSAMA . As we all watched Bush thinking while he heared the news of 9/11 @ school when he is attendenting nursery class for reason,he thinking what the blunder mistake i have done. So only U.S. Itself is responsible for all these.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@WillB,

I can't believe you gave Windsor building as an example of fires bringing buildings down. It is an example of how steel structures can burn all night but doesn't crumble on themselves. It It burned from top to bottom for 13 hours and it did not fall. Nothing can explain the pulverizing 110 story buildings of WTC after very short and isolated case of fire. except controlled demolution.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Dilbert14 - WTC#7 as you very well know, came down because of the massive impact and damage from the falling twin towers. Either that, or Bush and Cheney were around the corner with WileE Coyote and a DEMOLITION plunger. (Say, if all you conspiracy theorists are so much smarter than the overwhelming majority who can deal with tramatic events maturely, why can't you spell on a 6th grade level?)

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@Dilbert

Why is noone talking about WTC#7? Doesn't anyone know about it? What happened to it? All you official story believers, did you see it coming down? Would you say that fires brought it down? Just know that your ignorance is being counted on by the elite. They know they can do something like this and get away with it becuase most people will believe what TV is telling them. I would like one of you believers to make comment on WTC#7. Here's my comment: Obvious controlled demolution. ANd of course if that building was brought down in controlled demolution, so were the others.

Okay, here's my question - WHY?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Horsfella, I very well know that it was a controlled demolution. Silversteen admited it by saying "fires were too intense and decision was made to pull it" Let me ask one question. Were you curious enough to do your own research on the subject? Or are you just repeating what you heard on CNN?

@ Hatsoff, I don't know. All I know is buildings don't fall on free fall speeds and get pulverized. WTC#7 is obvious case of controlled demolution.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Obvious controlled demolution. ANd of course if that building was brought down in controlled demolution, so were the others.

Logic doesn't work that way. You can't explain away the large passenger jets hitting the towers at high speed by saying "Oh I don't understand how WTC 7 could have possibly fallen without it being a controlled demo!"

And how is it "obvious"? You can explain in detail how the collapse of the twin towers affected the stability of WTC 7? Or are you assuming the collapse of the twin towers had no effect whatsoever on WTC 7? (Which would be a very dubious thing to think)

Just know that your ignorance is being counted on by the elite. They know they can do something like this and get away with it becuase most people will believe what TV is telling them.

Ri-i-ight. Because thinking two hijacked planes crashing into the twin towers causing their eventual collapse is much more unrealistic than thinking two hijacked planes crashing into the twin towers and a separate controlled demolition of each brought them down.

If "mysterious forces" controlled by Cheney or the CIA or whatever were going to run a false flag operation to dupe people into going to war, why would you do a controlled demo AND hijack planes, crash them into the towers, etc? It would be 1000x easier to just demo the towers with an even bigger set of car bombs than was tried in '93. You could explain it away as "Oh man, they tried again and succeeded this time!" Much easier to accomplish and believe.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nothing can explain the pulverizing 110 story buildings of WTC after very short and isolated case of fire. except controlled demolution.

And the HUGE stresses on the building caused by the two airliners crashing into them! Why does the CT crowd constantly omit this? It's as if after your friend dies after a having herpes for years and saying "Herpes shouldn't kill anyone!", ignoring that he was shot just before he died.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@pawatan, please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded Everything I want to explain is in this video. As you know, #7 building wasn't the only building around and not the closest to the twin towers. I know it's hard to accept it, it wasn't easy for me either. But uunfortunately, it's the truth.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Why? That's the 10 Billion dollar question that the government doesn't want answered. Now, as I have repeatedly posted, my view is that 9/11 paved the way for the government to declare two wars, get rid of due process (via the patriot act) and maintain power with a president who was constantly ridiculed for having less than a 6th grader's ability to speak English...

Now, as to the importance of Building 7... The conspiracy movie of choice in this matter, "Loose Change" had some interesting views... One theory in the movie was that building 7 contained records of events that the government wanted destroyed. I find that theory to be over the top, as they could have used a shredder rather than destroy a whole building...

Another theory though, which I find more interesting about the whole scenario, involves the World Depository of Gold that was kept in a vault under the WTC complex. The theory goes like this: Different governments keep gold in this vault as a kind of marker for stock exchange activities (Cue the movie Die Hard 4 in which the bad guy says there's ore gold there than in Fort Knox). And the conspiracy theory says that after the destruction of the buildings, no gold was found in the rubble, certainly not enough to equal the amount that should have been there. So the movie narrator suggests that the gold was removed (by whom is not stated, perhaps CIA, Perhaps Lupin III) prior to the destruction.

IF the government did remove the gold, then that would be stealing from all those other countries, who are allies, and getting away with it (no one has asked for reimbursement). That gold could then be used to help pay for the war, or line a lot of pockets as bribes in the coming war against terror...

So, that movie concluded that the 9/11 was a massively successful heist by the U.S. government, allowing them to begin two wars in the Middle East, stay in power for 8 years, and make a lot of money to boot. That sounds like a CIA win/win scenario (right out of Hollywood) doesn't it?

-1 ( +4 / -4 )

American Devil, you described the WHY quite nicely.

It seems that we in "democratic" Western nations think it is simply inconceivable for elements within governments - and their supporters - to kill their own citizens for political, power or financial gain. Unfortunately, evil minds didn't vanish with the end of WW2.

Basically, most politicians and their owners don't give a darn about the average person; if a few people have to die, then so be it. Send the soldiers off to do the dirty work while bankers print enormous amounts of fiat currency to lend to governments who spend that money on military exploits. Those exploits are serviced by large corporations who supply the goods and services required to keep the military operating, sometimes getting the jobs through no-bid contracts (remember Halliburton?).

The WHY of 9/11 is that war is a massive racket. If 3,000 people had to die to justify more war, then so be it. There was no way people would have cared enough to be fooled by WMDs alone. A much bigger lie had to be perpetrated to garner public support, as American Devil noted.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Dilbert14

As you know, #7 building wasn't the only building around and not the closest to the twin towers. I know it's hard to accept it, it wasn't easy for me either. But uunfortunately, it's the truth.

You completely ignored what I said about the twin towers. Why is this?

And WTC 7 didn't collapse anything at all like a controlled demo. It collapsed partially before collapsing completely. It was discussed on the news that day that that the Fire Department thought WTC 7 would collapse, which is why everybody was pulled from the building (and nobody was killed).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@pawatan, I didn't ignore it, just that I can't explain it as well and detailed as it's explained in this video. If you can spare 15minutes, please watch it.

And WTC 7 didn't collapse anything at all like a controlled demo. It collapsed partially before collapsing completely.

It is collapsed exactely like it would in controlled demolution. It totally collapsed at one time, watch the video.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Seriously, anyone who believes the official government story about what happened on September 11 needs to take a good hard look at themselves.

Even the official 9/11 Commission set up to investigate had grave misgivings about the information they were given. Plus they faced constant obstructions from the CIA, FBI and Bush administration when searching for clues. That in itself says much about the government's version. Plus, they Bush administration wanted none other than Henry Kissinger to head up the commission! Even Washington powerbrokers saw that as a deliberate attempt to whitewash the outcome, so Bush had to back down.

Building 7 is one of the most important keys in this conundrum. How it collapsed in the manner it did is very odd, since it was hit by nothing but minor debris and collapsed on it's own footprint at freefall speed, with the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And there's the BBC video showing it standing and reported collapsed 20 minutes before it went down! Take a look at this following video showing the collapse, and WTC 7's owner commenting afterwards. Certainly raises some heady questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwp

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Dilbert14

It is collapsed exactely like it would in controlled demolution. It totally collapsed at one time, watch the video.

No, no it didn't. From wikipedia:

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

collapsed on it's own footprint at freefall speed, with the characteristics of a controlled demolition

I'll repeat the same thing I mentioned way above - what does this even mean??? How else would you expect a building to collapse? There's structural failure, gravity does its bit. Look at other collapsed buildings (Sampoong, Hotel New World) - these were caused by structural defects and collapsed in on themselves.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@pawatan,

Sorry, I have nothing more to say to you if you keep ignoring the evidence I presented. This video is made by Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. It shows clearly how WTC#7 came down. It's clear case of controlled demoultion.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Pawatan, If you're comparing the Sampoong building to WTC#7, we're on very different levels. Read this:

"Originally designed as an office building with four floors, it was changed to a large department store during its construction by Lee Joon, the future chairman of the building. This involved cutting away a number of support columns in order to install escalators. When the original contractors refused to carry out these changes, Lee ignored and fired them and hired his own building company for the construction."

Do you still think it's similar to WTC#7?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sorry, I have nothing more to say to you if you keep ignoring the evidence I presented.

What evidence? I saw your video. It's not evidence. You think a video by a group called "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth" is going to be an unbiased, scientific source? NIST is an scientific, unbiased source, but apparently you don't believe what they have to say.

And I notice you still haven't replied to my comment about the twin towers- you had to shift the topic to WTC 7.

Do you still think it's similar to WTC#7

I never said Sampoong was similar to WTC 7. I said it collapsed in on itself due to structural failure. You seem to think it's impossible for a structure to collapse straight down without a controlled demo. I used it as an example (along with New World Hotel) as how mere structural failure could do it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wikipedia is useful but not exactly a reliable source of information about controversial topics. It's regularly edited to ensure the truth is glossed over. Large numbers of firemen and police were threatened with sacking and loss of pension if they openly discussed what they saw and heard in and around the WTC complex on that day. Now they're not welcome at commemoration ceremonies at the WTC site. Go figure.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

pawatan, If you saw the video, you've seen how they compared WTC#7 collapse to other controlled demolutions. How buildings implode into themselves when all internal columns are severed at the same time. Building #7 is doing exactely the same thing, it's coming down really fast and onto itself. NIST is government controlled and can not be trusted. Their report is unscientific and impossible. They will say what they are told by their bosses. The AEfor911 truth is a movement. These professionals have gathered together to point out the impossibilities surrounding the official report and I believe them 100%. They have no reason to lie, noone to report to, paid by noone, not corrupted by politics and know what they are talkign about.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Wikipedia is useful but not exactly a reliable source of information about controversial topics.

I only used it for an example of the timeline. I don't trust it for most things.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dibert14

Building #7 is doing exactely the same thing, it's coming down really fast and onto itself.

All buildings do this when the supports are destroyed. That's why I mentioned the other buildings that have collapsed, there's no controversy over the reasons they collapsed yet they collapsed in on themselves.

NIST is government controlled and can not be trusted. Their report is unscientific and impossible.

OK, see now you lose credibility. How can you say it is "unscientific and impossible"? Are you a structural engineer? If not, how can you make a judgement? From watching You Tube videos?

They have no reason to lie, noone to report to, paid by noone, not corrupted by politics and know what they are talkign about.

There's plenty of reasons to lie. People have agendas. I don't think these people are lying, I think they just aren't very good at their jobs. Politics will do that to you.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

All buildings do this when the supports are destroyed.

Exactely as you said, when the supports are destroyed, all at the same time. All internal columns were destroyed at the same time. Rubble was also removed very fast becuase internal columns were cut at a length that would fit on a truck. It's a trademark of a company called "controlled demolutions". Same goes for twin towers.

That's why I mentioned the other buildings that have collapsed, there's no controversy over the reasons they collapsed yet they collapsed in on themselves.

Yes, I didn't think they were going to land on the next block, surely they fall down. But if it wasn't a controlled demolution, parts of the building would stand, not pulverize like it did.

How can you say it is "unscientific and impossible"? Are you a structural engineer? If not, how can you make a judgement? From watching You Tube videos?

I also try my best to select videos of dependable unbiassed sources. AEfor911truth is one of the good one. I watch their videos and believe what they say. I don't need to be a structural engineer to realize NIST report is a total farce. What they suggest is impossible and therefore not scientific. I can just believe over 1300 engineers and arhitects when they prove their points.

There's plenty of reasons to lie. People have agendas. I don't think these people are lying, I think they just aren't very good at their jobs. Politics will do that to you.

Governments have agendas, they are the ones in politics, not architects and engineers. Now you think you know more about structural engineering than those 1300 A&E professionals who have built many buildings all around the world. Care to comment to that?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Seriously, anyone who believes the official government story about what happened on September 11 needs to take a good hard look at themselves.

I'm looking good and hard, believe me. The problem is I'm just not hearing anything convincing. For example, why fly two planes into the buildings? Why not plant bombs in multiple floors in the building overnight. Hell, even a dirty nuclear bomb could have been made, no questions asked. Why planes? Totally unnecessary if it was a government sponsored act. And planes wouldn't even have been needed to create as much outrage as it did. Reasons? To justify a war? To steal gold? But again, using planes is an over-elaboration - totally unnecessary and prone to the plan going wrong. Perhaps it was a plan to create more jobs for air marshalls? Telling non-CTs to take a good hard look at themselves is not a convincing argument.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Why planes?"

They worked, didn't they?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

A PhD in physics and former student of physics teacher David Chandler had analysed the twin tower collapse, watch the part of the video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAkgKQ7G-U&feature=player_embedded#!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

A PhD in physics and former student of physics teacher David Chandler had analysed the twin tower collapse, watch the part of the video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAkgKQ7G-U&feature=player_embedded#!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@hatsoff,

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. I believe terrorists flew planes into the buildings and that's why they collapsed (although there is compelling evidence that the buildings were not maintained/updated as they should have been and that structural deterioration played a large part in the collapse).

However, just to play devil's advocate, the CIA has considered staging deliberate attacks in the US in the past to stir pro-war feelings in the populace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Exactely as you said, when the supports are destroyed, all at the same time. All internal columns were destroyed at the same time.

I didn't say "All internal columns were destroyed at the same time. " You said this. Don't put words in my mouth.

But if it wasn't a controlled demolution, parts of the building would stand, not pulverize like it did.

Why? I know you THINK this, but why? Do you know how much downward force is created by 47 collapsing floors? It's a whole lot. Plenty enough to break most things into small bits.

I also try my best to select videos of dependable unbiassed sources. AEfor911truth is one of the good one. I watch their videos and believe what they say.

Your first sentence is undercut by your second, and your third shows exactly why this is true. You BELIEVE what they say. It's not a matter of faith, it's science, and the vast majority of scientists would disagree vehemently with the very small group of people (1300 is such a tiny number of people, do you know how many engineers and physicists there are in the world? Millions.) who want to distort reality to their political ends.

Governments have agendas, they are the ones in politics, not architects and engineers.

Sure, buddy. Nobody but people in government has a political agenda. Not pro-lifers, anti-war demonstrators, tea party members, anti-whaling people, socialists, unions, PETA, or any other organization you can name. You gotta hold a job in government to be political!

Now you think you know more about structural engineering than those 1300 A&E professionals who have built many buildings all around the world. Care to comment to that?

Than these 1300 people? Yeah, yeah I do. Look at some of the "verified experts" in your group:

Ahmad Solomon, PE, Petroleum Consultant - Retired Almond J. Hays, Consulting Environmental & Chemical Engineer Bogos Paul Torikian, Registerd Geotechnical Engineer David J. Hajicek, Engineer, PE in ME and EE David Motto, engineer - patent agent Richard C. Rew, Electrical Engineer Robert J. McNamara, B.S. Ceramics Engineering Samuel Lowndes Ready, Citizen Steve Bishop, Senior System Administrator Greg Demchak, Designer Jonathan C. Baczewski, Intern Architect Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner

Experts, the whole lot...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@HumanTarget - thanks. Have conspiracies taken place in the past? Have countries lied to their own people and even killed them? Have there been cover ups? Yes, yes and yes. (The British government had pilots fly through mushroom clouds as "observers" when in fact they were guinea pigs to monitor the effects of radiation exposure. And Churchill's willingness to sacrifice citizens to avoid the Nazis knowing about codebreaking success was mentioned in another post.) I don't dispute these ideas at all. In the case of 9/11 though, I've just never heard anything convincing, especially about the why.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@pawatan,

I think we can go back and forth all day long about this. I think you're not being reasonable at all, suggesting that WTC#7 could fall the way it did. I know it could not have. I know explosives were planted in all three buildings and demolutuion was planned by experts. I know no plane hit pentagon and I know for sure some people had advanced knowldge of the events. I know silversteen bought the buildings couple months prior to the event and I know he doubled his money from insurance afterwards. There's no convincing me as there's no convincing you. You have a faith in system and you would fight to protect it. I on the other hand have no faith in humans, especially ones in power. I know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. above all, I know they are doing the things thety do because they know most people will believe the official story they come up with and won't question any further. Just know that your ignorance is being counted on by the elites.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Dilbert14, you don't know these things, you think these things. There's a very big difference. I don't know why you have to say things like:

There's no convincing me as there's no convincing you.

Oh, there's PLENTY convincing me. If groups want to claim that the hijackers were CIA, or Mossad had a hand in it, or any number of conspiracy theories around the known facts I would most definitely listen with an open mind. I don't believe government versions of most stories, and I am sympathetic to the idea that the US has a role in perpetuating the cycle of terrorism - playing both ends, so to speak.

But you want to tell me it's impossible that the twin towers fell due to the plane crashes and fires? And that WTC 7 could not have fallen as it did without there being a controlled demolition? Brother, you will never convince me. It's such tortured logic and so anti-scientific that quite frankly even the government's version of events seems much more plausible. As a person with a strong science and mathematics background I have zero problems understanding the obvious explanations for the WTC collapses as these are quite reasonable to explain using physics.

I know they are doing the things thety do because they know most people will believe the official story they come up with and won't question any further.

People aren't going to question further when the alternate theories are so whacked out and so improbable as to seem completely loony.

Just know that your ignorance is being counted on by the elites.

It's not my ignorance, friend - I can explain the tower collapses using good old physics, not faith. Again, you want to tell me the whole event was a false flag op? Maybe so, maybe so. Tell me it's "impossible" to have the twin towers collapse by any other mechanism than controlled demo? I'll say that's completely wrong, and use science to back it up.

I'd also like to point out that you still haven't answered why the 911 truth crowd claims fires brought down the twin towers, not huge airplanes crashing into them at high speeds + fires. It seems every time I have a discussion with a 911 truther they always switch the subject to WTC 7 when uncomfortable facts about the causes of the twin towers collapses are brought up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The "conspiracy theorist" label is a lazy epithet used by people who try to silence those who ask uncomfortable questions about contentious issues and hold a healthy skepticism towards government explanations. As much as I disagree with Pawatan's explanations, at least he(she?) is attempting to put forward evidence and ask reasonable questions. I can respect that.

I just think it is pretty naive to take the word of governments at face value on pretty much any issue, much less something like 9/11. Politicians and governments lie, backflip and cover up whenever it suits them, regardless of how minor the issue. As I mentioned in an earlier post, even the official 9/11 Commission complained that the government was actively unhelpful, regularly obstructing their investigations. If the Bush administration had nothing to hide, why were they so economical with the truth? Instead, they chose to ignore powerful questions and attempt to publicly smear their critics - including rescuers who risked their lives in extreme danger and are now gravely ill from the toxic dust they encountered.

Let's consider why planes were used in the attacks. 9/11 appears to be a very well planned psychological operation to manipulate public opinion in favour of upcoming wars. The powerful image of the second plane flying into one of the towers has been viewed countless times in the last 10 years, and has been milked for all it's worth by governments to ramp up the fear factor to justify the war on terror and its associated trappings. It reminds me of the two minutes of focused hate against the Goldstein figure in 1984. A simple demolition without the planes would simply not carry the same emotional influence. Moreover, the towers collapsing on their own footprint following a large basement bomb would be a lot harder for the public to believe.

And what about the Patriot Act? How could such a complex document be prepared in just weeks after 9/11? Of course it was a bill waiting for a suitable event that would convince Americans to surrender some liberty for perceived security. It flushed due process down the drain, and most of Congress didn't even bother to read it before they for voted, with very few having the courage to vote against it. Successive Congresses have voted to extend the Act with little amendment. So now there is the behemoth of the Dept of Homeland Security acting as a law unto itself, and hundreds of innocent people on the no-fly list with little recourse against the government for this grievous error.

All the while, America descends further into fascism and the perpetrators believe they will never be brought to justice.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

prettyflyforahentai

As much as I disagree with Pawatan's explanations, at least he(she?) is attempting to put forward evidence and ask reasonable questions.

I'm a he :)

Nice post, by the way - I actually very much agree with your points. I just don't agree there was a controlled demolition of the towers - or at the very least I haven't seen even a bit of convincing evidence to that effect. People should always keep their eyes and minds open for the truth and not blindly accept what they have been told (goes for 911 truth website and video aficionados as well - critical thinking necessary at all times!)

But that the Bush administration actively obfuscated the truth? No question. That the administration used the attacks to justify two probably unjustifiable wars? That the US government took away personal liberties and continues to do so (even with a 'hope and change' admin in office)? Cannot be disputed. The changes in the US in the last 10 years are pretty disgusting and for the very large part self-inflicted.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's kind of baffling how many conspiracy theorists there are on this forum. If you look at such a cursory source as even the "9/11 conspiracies" Wikipedia article, the large majority of the theories are easily refuted by non-government-associated experts.

Also, there seem to be people still relying on the "whatever crashed into the Pentagon wasn't a plane" theory, but the government long ago released security camera footage that clearly shows an aircraft crashing into it (they had previously withheld the footage for reasons unknown). Eyewitnesses also reported extensively the sights and sounds of an aircraft flying terrifyingly close to the ground in the vicinity of the Pentagon just before the explosion.

Rather than try to defend easily-refuted conspiracy theories, it would be a much better use of your time and energy to try to persuade some kind of government reform to prevent such an incident from happening again. Here is a link to a New Yorker article, for example, that suggests the government had a somewhat abstract knowledge of an impending attack, but efforts to thwart it were undermined by an unnecessary FBI/CIA rivalry: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wright

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Pawatan,

cheers, mate! I like a good discussion with people who stand by reasonable arguments and don't resort to petty name calling. This topic is always going to get people revved up, and the arguments will only ever get settled by solid evidence examined by experts and with relentless pursuit of the truth. The perps are never going to come out and intentionally incriminate themselves...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@hatsoff If it was explained to you you wouldn't understand it anyway - you'd probably just reject it. You need to educate yourself to the way of the world before you can go to the next level. You were given a link. Listen carefully to what the man is saying. It is but one block. Of which you need to collect many. Like I've said there are no shortcuts. "Wax on wax off". I am bothering writing this because you appeared to have genuine interest.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

America Controversially some will say they were responsible. for clues ,just look at recent news re Liyba/cia and behaviour that some would wish swept under the carpet,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@HumanTarget

released security camera footage that clearly shows an aircraft crashing into it I'd be interested in seeing that - do you have a link?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@woundedsamurai,

The wikipedia article for the flight number has the video. In a single frame, you can see what clearly appears to be the nose of an aircraft mere meters from the point of impact.

Also in that same wikipedia article are photographs taken soon after the crash showing aircraft debris clearly visible.

As an expert in the article states (say what you will about Wikipedia, but in this case it's a legitimate, published source), you wouldn't expect a cartoon-like hole in the shape of a plane to be punched into the point of impact. The wings, which are made of a much less sturdy substance (you can see them wobble like rubber bands when you take off and land) would be sheered off by even a mildly reinforced substance such as steel or concrete, or even by lightpoles in the flightpath.

Also think about this: Assuming it's a conspiracy, in order to keep a secret of that magnitude, you would require the full faith cooperation of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people. Think about it - Everyone from a certain level in the CIA down, probably the same for the FBI, the President, most of his administration, most or all eyewitnesses, cell phone operators that intercepted phone calls from the flights, anyone from emergency services that responded to the scene, etc. etc.

Now think about how many times you've met just one single person - one person - that can keep a secret indefinitely.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@HumanTarget thanks - I am not trying to say you are wrong or right but I would like to hightlight 2 points you make. 1

would be sheered off by even a mildly reinforced substance such as steel or concrete.

When we apply this to the towers, the reverse is supported. 2

Assuming it's a conspiracy, in order to keep a secret of that magnitude, you would require the full faith cooperation of thousands.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm sure people carry out orders/tasks everyday for their bosses not knowing the whole picture. It's called encapsulation of concerns.

The skill here is to omit one thing but repeat (ad nauseum) another. It's not a new technique. We'll never know, but my suspicions lie in a knowledge of history and an understanding of how governments interface with both (read: are owned by) elite factions (International money lenders, monarchy etc) and underworld crime. But like I say encapsulation of concerns is the key and if anything does come to light - kill it fast.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@HumanTarget

Not much to see in that video. A white object and an explosion. If there was one pattern you could apply to all these events is the lack of material evidence afterwards.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Perhaps the most important point about the collapse of these buildings is the TIME it took.

They dropped in about the same time that an object would fall if you let it fall into empty space.

This means that, if, on September the 10th, someone had lobbed a brick off the roof of one of the twin towers, it would have beaned some unfortunate guy on the ground at about the same time the buildings fell.

The same time!

Aircraft fuel, which doesn't burn at a very high temperature and other inflammables in the offices might have heated the structure enough to weaken the steel ABOVE THE FLOORS where the planes hit, because HEAT TRAVELS UPWARDS.

But even IF the heat from all the burning paper, carpets, curtains and so on, had caused enough heat to weaken the structure above where the planes hit, there would have to have been some resistance when the upper floors crashed into the ones below.

That would not happen from top to bottom in 15 seconds!

How could it?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

johninnaha

That would not happen from top to bottom in 15 seconds!

How could it?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it impossible!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics

Start studying.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Since most of the people on this thread want to concentrate on just how the towers fell, and what happened to the Pentagon, I have some questions for those who accept the government accounting on blind faith.

(1) If Jet fuel constantly burned at the temperature needed to melt steel, why don't the engines of your average aircraft constantly melt off form such excessive heat?

(2) In order for the fire to heat up to 6000 degrees inside the core of the buildings, there would need to be a constant, controlled supply of fuel. Wouldn't the impact and destruction of the plane caused the fuel to be spread forward out of the building along the lines of the crash (momentum) rather than carefully feeding flames down the internal shaft of the building for an hour as suggested? Try this experiment. Fill a water balloon with paint and throw it at a pipe with a hole in it. record how much of the paint will coat the interior, and how long the paint will continue to seep into the hole and down the inside. Will it continue for an hour?

(3) Playing along, lets assume that the airplane had sufficient fuel to pour down the inside core. Once it did, wouldn't the fire follow the fuel back up to its source and burn that (further explosions, destroying the source of the fuel. After all, there is a reason why people should not smoke at gas pumps, and we are being asked to assume that the fuel form the plane was used to heat the interior up to 6000 degrees over an hour without blowing up the source of the fuel.... How is that possible without some control over the flow and distribution of the fuel which shouldn't be possible from an impact that utterly destroyed the aircraft.

(4) Moving to the Pentagon. Why is there only a blurry shot of a white blob impacting with the side of the building? Are you telling me that there are no security cameras anywhere around the pentagon except in the parking lot? What about from the hotel across the street? Why has all footage been seized and held secret except for one small version? What is it that we aren't to see? We've all seen two planes hit two buildings and the destruction of those (three) buildings and the deaths of those inside. Is the CIA afraid we might see something other than a plane hitting the wall?

(5) A point about planes from my sister who is a military flight mechanic. Although the wings are lightweight and should have sheered off at the first impact of the telephone poles, its amazing that the poles were knocked down without even the evidence of paint transference let alone wings being sheared off. Also, aside from the impact of the central body, there should be some major evidence of the two engines which are made of titanium. yet the only parts found were small enough to be carried away by person. The conspiracy movie even claims that the engine part shown does not come from a civilian aircraft, but from a military craft. I'll leave that claim to the side since its not central to the argument.

(6) But here is one more point I want considered. What's good for one building surely must be good enough for another. If each of the twin towers can collapse completely due to a single airplane spreading fuel for over an hour at 6000 degrees temperature, then why is the same NOT true in the case of the Pentagon? where did the fuel go? was the plane on fumes and completely empty when it hit? the pictures I have seen show only one section collapsed from the IMPACT, not from steel-melting fires. Why didn't the rest of the building collapse, or fall into the underground sections? According to the believers, above, the burning fuel melted steel and concrete, thus it should have done the same to the Pentagon. If the impact of debris from the destruction of the twin towers was enough to cause the total collapse of Building 7, wouldn't the impact of a plane also cause a brick building such as the Pentagon to also completely collapse? Or is brick and concrete much stronger than steel and concrete?

(7) To move onto 'crash' site in PA. If the fuel can continue burning at 6,000 degrees in WTC for an hour, why was there very little fire in the PA crash? Again, was the plane empty was the fuel dumped? Why could parts and bodies be carried away. There should have been nothing left but powdered ash if we had an hour-long fire at 6000 degrees in the middle of the PA woods.

I will be happy to hear the believers answers to my questions. If there are any.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yes.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Unfortunately, there will always be reasonable human beings that will always believe in government conspiracy in major disasters. You simply cannot argue with these people. BTW, what was the question again?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Looking at the way the twin towers fell it is quite possible to see puffs of smoke emanate from the corners of the buildings-exactly as a controlled demolition would also show.

A very neat job not only did Al-Queda fly plans into the twin towers they also blew them up too-very thorough.

Al-Qaeda is still a/was a threat?

Well, of course it is ! After all the billions of dollars and lost lives and blatant lies there sits the current bogeyman as sprite as ever! In some underground megabillion impregnable lair there is a group that wishes to destroy the free world that has links in every country in the world and that can hatch convoluted bombing plots right under the noses of mega billion dollar government/corporate security concerns.

It is an endless war funded by you that will last forever and ever.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

it seems that human history will end up where it began. "on da banks of de nile"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If each of the twin towers can collapse completely due to a single airplane spreading fuel for over an hour at 6000 degrees temperature

American Devil, you keep making strawman arguments. Fires did not bring down the twin towers, fires and the passenger jet impacts brought down the twin towers, more the latter than the former.

It's a pure strawman arguments to keep saying repeatedly 6000 degrees this, 6000 degrees that, jet fuel burning for an hour, etc etc. Nobody says this but people who don't believe it. So if you are going to criticize the official story at least have the decency to get the official story correct.

Try this experiment. Go spread a hundred gallons of gasoline in an office building and set it afire. The gas will burn very quickly, does the fire stop? Of course not, the building and its contents are flammable. Who says "jet fuel burned constantly at 6000 degrees for an hour"? The towers themselves burnt for an hour (at far less than 6000 degrees).

Of course, the impacts themselves are the major factor in the collapse. Why do you mention them only in passing?

If Jet fuel constantly burned at the temperature needed to melt steel, why don't the engines of your average aircraft constantly melt off form such excessive heat?

Jet engines aren't made of steel?

the pictures I have seen show only one section collapsed from the IMPACT, not from steel-melting fires.

See, now you get it. I recommend more critical thinking.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I love the logic of conspiracy theorists - see one thing in the cold hard light of day, and then go and draw an entirely contrary conclusion. Analyse film footage to death, pull tiny pieces of it from all over the place that seem to vaguely support your idea, bang it together in a crappy documentary, and call it proof. Evidence. Well, those docos I have seen about that day are complete rubbish, and if you find highly manipulated, constructed and heavily edited programs like that a satisfactory base for a good, logical argument, I call your position weak.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Pawatan get your facts right. Aircraft use kerosene not gasoline and you'd need a blast furnace to melt steel, otherwise my kerosene heater would have melted the first time I switched it on, don't tell me that's made of Titanium! Also there would have been buckling before the collapse. Then theres building 7 which wasn't even hit by an aircraft, it's a text book controlled demolition and you know it. Super structures like that just don't go from stationary to free fall collapse instantly. They were designed to withstand jumbo jet impacts and fires anyway.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I saw a documentary on whyy on how the towers fell. It was informative stuff. I didn't doubt the gov on 9/11 but I have doubts about the death of Bin Laden.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Pawatan,

You like the idea that the impact of the airplanes caused the destruction of the buildings, but if so, why didn't they collapse immediately? Why wasn't there more buckling from the beginning?

I mentioned fires and 6000 degrees because those have been the arguments of people like yourself who believe the official story that the planes' impacts and burning fuel caused the destruction of the three buildings.

And as others have asked in addition to myself, if as you claim the buildings were destroyed mostly because of the impacts, then why did Building 7 (which didn't suffer major impacts go down? It didn't get jet fuel sprayed all over it, or in it, yet it went down. And yet the pentagon also suffered the impact of "a plane" and yet didn't collapse. That disproves your theory that the impacts were the major contributors to the buildings' demise.

Calling me a strawman doesn't answer the questions, just shows that its easier for you to degrade me than answer my questions concisely or civilly.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Rich7

I agree with you completely.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

American Devil

On the "Plane" that hit the Pentagon.

The security camera shots that they finally did release with great reluctance don't show enough of anything to know what it was.

But what they do show is the white exhaust from the engines.

As we all know, jet engines produce a white vapour, we see this in the sky, when a jet passes overhead.

The white trails are actually water vapour. The planes are up so high that the air temperature is very cold and water vapourizes.

But the shots of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon show white vapour.

At ground level?

Doesn't happen, does it. Watch a jet landing and you don't see white vapour.

Jet engines don't produce white vapour at ground level.

But rockets do.

Aha!

A rocket would also explain some of the other unanswered questions:

How come a terrorist who flunked Cessna training could pilot a commercial jet on an impossibly difficult flight path?

Why there was a circular hole in the building.

Why the debris was cleared away before anyone who had a chance to take photographs of it.

Why they only release a few selected shots from a security camera that must have been running continually, before and after the hit. Shots that showed - something - it could have been anything - very unclear.

The coincidence of the plane hitting the very area of the Pentagon that was being renovated and where there were hardly any people.

The unlikelihood of no intercepting planes. This is the Pentagon, after all.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Patawan, you seem to continually gloss over the main point I'm making. That EVEN IF fire weakened the structure of the buildings they would take longer to collapse than the ten/fifteen seconds they did.

There would have to be some resistance as floor crashed into floor and that would add on time.

This can be explained if demolition charges were placed at strategic points in the structure.

I'm just trying to understand this.

It seems to me that a scientist would be able to look at an event from ALL angles. And come up with things no one has ever thought of.

Are you doing this?

Or are you just trying to "prove" that bombs weren't placed in the buildings?

I wonder.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Rich7

it's a text book controlled demolition and you know it.

Um, no I don't, and neither does the vast, vast majority of scientific opinion. I've yet to see one tiny shred of credible evidence of a controlled demolition. On the other hand, I and everybody else have seen plenty of evidence of huge passenger jets crashing into them at high speeds and uncontrolled fires for about an hour.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

johninnaha

Or are you just trying to "prove" that bombs weren't placed in the buildings?

I don't and nobody else has to 'prove' that bombs were placed in the buildings any more than it needs to be proven that a meteor didn't do it, or HAARP, or God's wrath.

Patawan, you seem to continually gloss over the main point I'm making. That EVEN IF fire weakened the structure of the buildings they would take longer to collapse than the ten/fifteen seconds they did.

I'm not glossing over this - I want you to explain WHY this is necessarily true. It's not at all obvious to me that this should be the case, and in fact I would expect to see the towers collapse at such speeds. You are the one making the controversial claim, you must explain why it should be so.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A 17 tonne plane flying into a building nearly half a kilometer tall at around 500 miles per hour. The impact is so forceful it makes the buildings sway. The second impact blows right though the building and out the opposite and adjoining sides - the resultant structural damage is clear to see. The explosion ignites everything on several floors, and it seems reasonable to assume electrical and perhaps gas fires may contribute as well. Each building is full of combustible material which burn and combine into an inferno. The combination of fire and structural damage creates weakpoints, which, when they give way, don't have 1 floor's worth of weight coming down, but the aggregate weight of all the floors above - which is what? Hundreds of thousands or millions of tonnes? And each subsequent floor underneath suffers the same effect. Would it come down in freefall? Seems entirely reasonable to me. As it collapses, will it blow pockets of air out of windows which people later claim are evidence of controlled explosion? Yes. Naturally, yes.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Building 7 not more than 100 meters from the North Tower, had a 420meter building collapse right next to it, which rained debris and rubble down in a collapse radius that included bulding 7. The resultant fires from the damage, which in this case burned for several hours, did the same job as for both towers. The Pentagon is not a tower, it's a 5 or 6 story building, so of course the whole things isn't going to collapse from a plane hitting it. I would have thought that to be fairly self evident. The section that DID get hit, did collapse. The lack of actual video or photographic proof of this impact is no more evidence of it not happening, than it is of it happening. The one small shred of evidence to suggest it was a plane, is American Flight 77, and the 64 people aboard. If it was a missile, what happened to this plane and these people (I'm really looking forward to the answer to this one)? And I guess all the photos of the twisted fuselage littering the lawn in front of the crash site was placed there or whatever. No to mention the witnesses.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No conspiracy theories about 9/11 really work. After Dad died, Mom remarried. Turned out he is a conspiracy theorist who believes the One-World Government watches you through the red dot on your TV. Same paranoid illogic says---without credible evidence---the US government did in our own World Trade Center buildings.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Patawan - any argument that has to hide behind "the vast, vast majority of scientific opinion" as you put it, is very suspicious.

Please explain to me how you imagine that 110 floors can crash down into each other at the same speed that something would drop IN OPEN AIR, WITH NO RESISTANCE.

Controlled demolition places explosives at key points in the structure so that there is no supportive strength.

Of the two, this seems the most likely.

And please don't give us the "I'm a scientist," and "the vast majority of scientific opinion." I'd like to hear YOUR explanation of how you believe it happened.

But, perhaps that is not what is on your agenda.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Joke? What kind of question is this?

Yes, they were responsible.

What have you been told differently in Japan?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Please explain to me how you imagine that 110 floors can crash down into each other at the same speed that something would drop IN OPEN AIR, WITH NO RESISTANCE.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You haven't answered the question, and repeating your assertion with PART OF IT IN ALL CAPS changes nothing.

We all saw the towers collapse at the speed they did. Gravity + the mass of the buildings doing what it does. You say this is impossible without controlled demolition, but you cannot explain why.

So: Why?

But, perhaps that is not what is on your agenda.

What agenda? I'm quite interested in the truth about 9/11 as well as I have mentioned repeatedly and extensively above. I keep reading things like "110 floors can crash down into each other at the same speed that something would drop IN OPEN AIR, WITH NO RESISTANCE." as if this the most obviously impossible thing ever. I don't think it's the most impossible thing ever and it's completely uninteresting to me.

Now the root causes of the attacks,who planned and funded them, who knew about them - THAT is interesting and controversial. This junk about "Oh its physically impossible" is just a smokescreen for the really interesting stuff...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don't believe there ever were any Twin Towers. It's all just a big conspiracy.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

American Devil

Calling me a strawman doesn't answer the questions, just shows that its easier for you to degrade me than answer my questions concisely or civilly.

I don't think you understand what a 'strawman' is - it's not a descriptor of a person nor an insult, it's a type of logical fallacy. You are countering arguments that nobody is making. Nobody claims the things you say are impossible or unreasonable. That's a strawman argument. I wasn't degrading you.

the official story that the planes' impacts and burning fuel caused the destruction of the three buildings

Two buildings. North and South towers.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

A number of people profited greatly from 9/11.

This is an excellent article about it:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-08-31/news/9-11-the-winners-profiting-from-september-eleventh/

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A full 67% of respondants give an unequivocal "NO". Even on the only forum (internet) where cons. theorists dare spread their nonsense, they are vastly outnumbered. For the 20% who voted "yes", and 10% teetering on the brink of insanity, it pretty much mirrors society, I'd say.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I've yet to see one tiny shred of credible evidence of a controlled demolition.

Because you keep on ignoring them. In the link I posted, it explains how three independant research at all three buildings found traces of thrmite.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I keep reading things like "110 floors can crash down into each other at the same speed that something would drop IN OPEN AIR, WITH NO RESISTANCE." as if this the most obviously impossible thing ever. I don't think it's the most impossible thing ever and it's completely uninteresting to me.

Could the reason why, it's completely uninteresting to you be becuase it defies laws of physics? You can't claim to be a scientist and ignore the fact that building would never fall in freefall speeds, unless all internal columns were all severed in synch.

As a matematician, maybe you could help us calculate the possibilities of these many events coming together in one day.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Ockham's razor

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ockham's razor

Occam's razor would say the SIMPLEST explanation is most likely. Somehow I don't think teams of hijackers smashing passenger jets into the twin towers while simultaneously charges have been placed throughout to bring them down in controlled demolitions (incidentally, they would be three times higher than the tallest buildings ever brought down in a controlled demolition!) is the simplest explanation. And of course, no conspirator in what would be a vast conspiracy of people involved in the hijacking, training of hijackers and demolition experts (who have never attempted to bring down a building even a third of the twin towers' heights) ever was identified or said a word.

Seems like loonball jihadis crashing planes into the twin towers causing their collapse would be a far, far simpler explanation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the link I posted, it explains how three independant research at all three buildings found traces of thrmite.

I can and have made thermite myself (chemist in a previous life). Not the most difficult to make or rarest substance around. Incidentally, it's commonly used in welding steel.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To me, these conspiracy theories are internet fed rubbish that have taken on a life of their own far removed from the event. For many, the poorly edited you tube clips relying on murky and highly questionable 'evidence' seem to have come to constitute the event itself. Well, I watched in live on TV as the the US news feed cut into prime time TV here in Australia - watched with horror as the buildings were hit, as people jumped out and died, as the south tower began to slowly sag and twist, then collapse down on itself, as the North tower followed. We watched deep into the night, then into the following day. It was incredible, unimaginable, but I knew the historic precedents behind the attacks, and even as they happened I knew why it was happening. I was shocked, but I was not surprised. And I have to be careful what I say, because the mods here are very touchy, but this idle chatter about conspiracies really are just entirely unconvincing arguments that seem to revolve more about the semantics of arguments themselves than the reality of what actually transpired. Perhaps too many people confuse the internet for the real world, I don't know.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good lord I can't even read all of these because they make my head hurt. I hope this isn't pulled for this comment, but this just illustrates how there are many people out there that are not very bright, and that have way too much free time on their hands to think about this in such depth, some claim to have 'done tests with models'. Really??

I think anytime something horrific happens, particularly something that had such a profound and resounding effect on American society people insist on it being some type of conspiracy. And since they need to kick 'old evil GB' around a bit more, why not blame him and his administration? Works out nicely.

Am I to believe that one of the theories is that there actually was no aircraft that hit the Pentagon? Funny that as one of my best friend's wives - at the time they lived a very short distance from the Pentagon - saw the plane going in and remarked to her son 'oh my god, that plane is going to crash. They heard it impact and saw the smoke. One hell of a Hollywood stunt if that was fake.

To those who 'doubt it could happen' I would say - why not? There are a million scientists and engineers who will argue points either way. Sometimes things just happen when various things occur in certain orders, I don't thing that's so troubling to believe. Violent impact, fire, vibration. Why does it always have to be a bigfoot, alien, ghost or some ridiculously devised conspiracy? Because too many people aren't that bright and have far too much free time on their hands.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The molten steel(caused by the thermite found in the rubble) dripping down the steel on the towers as they burned, Thermite is exclusively US Military

It's used in the welding of steel (what are buildings made from?) and the construction of metals, it's definitely not exclusive to US military.

No plane wreck at pentagon, no bodies from supposed plane hit on pentagon, CCTV footage of what looks like a missile hitting the pentagon....

Have a look at photos from the day - there is plane fuselage scattered all over the lawn in front of the building. I'm not even in to this rubbish, but 20 seconds of research found those photos. Have you actually looked? If that was a missile, what happened to the people and plane of flight 77? I'm really keen to see your answer to this, by the way, so I await with baited breath. CCTV footage shows nothing, basically, except the explosion, as you know. Completely inconclusive to support either position, as you know. But what about all of the witnesses, like Tigermoth's best friend's wife? Are they all part of the eleborate scheme as well? Are they under some kind of government intimidation or coercion to perpetrate the story?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As long as I don't what Al-Qaida is actually, that kind of question has no interest. Then the events of that day has become so insignificant... compared to the reaction to them. That's really as if you ask me what I think about Pearl Harbor... 9/11 or not, Pearl Harbor or not, the wars that followed were already scheduled.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Cos - I would agree. I would even go onto say that they are planned decades in advance.

We should judge a tree by the fruit it bears.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

They claimed they did it. The 19 hijackers were all confirmed Al Quaeda members. The conspiracy theories are bunk and laughable. Without the Internet, these 9/11 conspiracy theories wouldn't have proliferated nearly as much had this event happened prior.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The fact that so many people still believe the US govt did this makes me depressed.

The last guy I met who believes it was all an inside job believes the moon landing and the holocaust were faked too.

And these people are allowed to vote!!

Next they'll be saying the CIA caused the tsunami and the Fukushima meltdown! (no, I shouldn't give them ideas. Oh no, too late - that theory is being expounded too!)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

YES.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have only one question about 9/11.Why was this finally tune plot to take over four jet liners at once take them off course and get at least three of them to their targets the one an only time Al Qaeda managed to do it.

Now I would not necessary expect to see multiple highjackings, but it would seem strange that no high- jackings anywhere in the world, not even third world countries. Dropping a jet plane one one of embassies is certainly a lot more effective than going back to car bombs and truck bombs. That is my only question. Why were they never able to do something similar ever again. Again I assume a multiple highjacking would be difficult but a single plane and crashing it into an American embassy in a third world should have been a slam dunk shortly after 9/11.

One would expect them to move into more major terrorist plots better planned, not just a one time fluke. Now of course maybe they didn't 9/11. I won't even try to guess who pulled off because we have no information to go on.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

22% said no, and 12% said don't know. Incredible.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I tend to agree with Christopher Blackwell and his question, how is it that an organization that could manage nothing more than a few car bomb attacks and a host of failed attempts. Even the Cole attack was their second try the first time on another US ship their boat sank due to the weight it was carrying. So how did this bumbling bunch manage to launch such a sophisticated simultaneous attack?

It was either incredible good luck on their part or they had expert help from someone in planning and carrying out the attacks

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh my God, the conspiracy theoristrs are out tonight. Like a massive herd of sheep.

A: "How many conspiracy theorists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

B: "None, because the lightbulb hasn't been invented yet. It's just a massive conspiracy by the New World Order of governments to make the masses THINK that there are such things as "light bulbs" on earth. In reality, the New World Order has not authorized introducing light bulbs to earth yet. They only use them on the dark side of the moon for now. Which, by the way, was never really visited by earthlings. They were really Changlings from planet Xorb that PRETENDED....blah....blah...blah...

steve@CPFCSep. 05, 2011 - 09:31AM JST

"I am past caring. The whole thiing was down to poor international policy mostly by the US but many others including my home country the UK. Now we have turmoil in the Arab world a world recession and countries under foreign military control. All of this could have been prevented decades ago."

Nice. Blame us for the murderous and barbaric actions of the animals in the middle east. Nice.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Mr Brooke; Please try not to become a victim. I blamed my own country the UK as well. for all of you Americans who wish to go on about animals and terrorists,until 9/11 it was legal in America to hold IRA fund raising parties that helped kill thousands. America turned a blind eye until it was attacked. Look at the true history.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

steve@CPFC - Interesting theory. Personally, I can see where Kevin Lee Brooke is coming from too. I see the Islamic terrorists as largely unhappy with their own failed lives in a once powerful, but now hopelessly decaying country. I see their treatment of women as a symptom of their unhappiness. You know, keep the womenfolk in line through threats and beatings. Refusing to let them out of the kitchen and have a career. The knocker is that they're just so jealous of the U.S. For these reasons alone, I know 9/11 was not a conspiracy.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There are people who have posted on this thread who are genuinely trying to work out what went on on that day, looking at it from every different angle. And there are the extremists whose contribution to logic goes not much farther than "Ya boo sucks!"

Lumping people together who disagree with your pet theory and labeling them as a broad sheeplike group is not applying the logical process.

What we need are more questions - asked in the right places UNTIL we get real answers.

Chris Blackwell raises an excellent point.

How come the Al Qaeda managed to succeed so magnificently on that one day and failed so miserably before and after it?

And, by the way, there is no doubt about whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not.

OF COURSE it was a conspiracy.

The question is not whether or not it was a conspiracy, but whose conspiracy it was.

Al Qaeda's?

Dick Cheney's?

The CIA's?

Richard Murdoch's?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Conspiracy "Dogmatists" - Is ridicule all you have? Best not to waste time trying to figure out if it was a missile that hit the pentagon or a red herring. Look at what's going on in 2011.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As of 12:30am 9/10, 21% say no and 11% say don't know. They walk among us!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I don't know. I don't know anyone working for Al-qaida. I don't know Bin Laden. I don't know if he really existed. I don't know if he really died. I don't know if it is a conspiracy. All I know is that worldwide many innocent people died. But I don't know what for and I want it to end right now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Professor Plum in the Library with a candlestick....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

i do not know what to believe. i simply cannot understand how can there be so much hatred in some humans to kill innocent lives, children, the more the better? only a terribly sick and twisted mind can justify such an act to itself.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think that Al-Qaida did it, but that the US government allowed them to do it so they had an excuse to invade.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The knocker is that they're just so jealous of the U.S. For these reasons alone, I know 9/11 was not a conspiracy.

My experience in the Middle East in 1998/99 (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Turkey) was such that I found no sentiments resembling jealousy when people there talked about the US - and surprisingly, alot of people talked quite openly, quite honestly and quite often about the US, from taxi drivers, to coffee vendors, to hotel owners, to people you meet on the bus. I was surprised at how politically aware people were, and how the US featured largely in their psyche. Now, I have a reasonable grasp on history, and I knew how 'active' the US had been in this part of the world - it has a long history of 'involvement' in many parts of the Middle East, but what was easy to gauge was how much the people across the countries I went to strongly resented that. I have to admit I was surprised and how strong it was, but then you are talking about considerable issues that seriously impact on lives. I was glad I wasn't American, and I met exactly no Americans in any of the countries I visited. But what was really driven home to me was how corrosive the foreign policy of one country can be on it's image in some parts of the world, and how much resentment it can generate. Those people didn't like America, or showed any jealousy of it, they had a genuine dislike of the place. They resented US involvement in their part of the world, and they let me know it. Now, take a couple of steps to the right from your coffee shop guy, and you have a hopping mad nutter with an axe to grind. It's for those reasons I know there is no conspiracy with 9/11, and that Al Qaieda, or some other Middle East based extremist group pulled off that highly successful attack on New York.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I am puzzled... We ordinary Gaijin working as English Teachers/ Translators have no idea of...who did the blast...even we have no interest... but, just anybody can claim it... ..I did that...or we did it or they did it ..like jok.. But still, there are no Exact facts that are proven .. by technically and scientifically to claim, the blast or to accuse the blast on AL KAIDA. You were asked this Question in US long time ago, who did the 9 / 11 blast..? A considerable percentage of professionals ( well educated in relevant fields )say this can be a INSIDE WORK. it is Hard to accuse on AL KAIDA.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Skepticism, opinion and speculation, however well reasoned, do not constitute actual proof. The Doubting Thomases have had 10 years to come up with evidence that would nullify the standard explanation. How much more time will they need to provide this evidence? I would argue that nothing they've added to the debate has changed the explanations one iota. I would concede that a cover-up may have occurred, but it was mainly by people who failed miserably in their jobs of protecting the United States, when the CIA and other sources already knew that credible threats existed. Of course the damage has been done, and blaming them won't bring back the victims or the WTC.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Personally, when Bin Laden praised the hijackers over radio waves, that pretty much sealed the deal for me concerning who's responsible....and it wasn't the Bush Administration....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I admire Bill Clinton for admitting to some responsibility for the attacks, and voicing his regrets about not taking out Ousama Bin Laden when he had the chance.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Be nice if we could of got Osama/Usama in for trial eh? You know, him on the stand admitting it to the world. Would have put the whole subject to bed. He could have told us how he arranged a military exercise on the same day to help get around Norad. He could have told us how fires burn downwards with no air. He could have told us why he targeted the Pentagon. He could have told us the target of the plane that crashed. He could of told us whether he just got lucky with building seven. He could have told us how to make paper passports that are impervious to aircraft crashes and burning buildings :). A man with such genius and such knowledge going to waste at the bottom of the sea. We could have learnt so much to help us prevent future events. We could have asked - Osama/Usama, why did you do this? Alas based on a suspect video, we have a 'habeas corpus' loving 'yes we can make a martyr' president putting a kill order on the guy. No fair trail. No way for the public to hear his side. Convenient? Just could have been. IMHO - Bunch of patsies used and then set up. It really is pantomime and ignorance may just well be bliss.

Coming to a cinema near you - al-Qaeda 2 - the sequel. 'This time they're angry'.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

woundedsamurai:

You know, all these conspiracy talking points that you list in your last message have been addressed over and over. I don´t who who is supposed the energy to get into that detail de-bunking again.

But that is of course the built-in advantage of any conspiracy theorist: Nobody holds them to any standards, they can just speculate and phantasize with abandon. As Andreas Popp said so nicely: A conspiracy theorist can make up more in two minutes than a scientist can debunk in two years...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

woundedsamurai1 - Those damn Americans! They kept OBL alive for almost 10 years, and just when he could have shed light on who killed Jimmy Hoffa, they kill him!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

hoserfella:

" Interesting theory. Personally, I can see where Kevin Lee Brooke is coming from too. I see the Islamic terrorists as largely unhappy with their own failed lives in a once powerful, but now hopelessly decaying country. I see their treatment of women as a symptom of their unhappiness. "

I think you are missing the point a bit. For the islamic martyrs, it does not matter that their Shariah countries are hellholes, or that their lives are miserable, or that Western countries offer a so much better life. Because that is irrelevant. Because this life is short and over soon, and all that matters is the eternal paradise with virgins and and undreamed pleasures. You can read the final statements of other islamic suicide bombers, and this is what always transpires. The 9/11 pilots were not different in any way, or surprising in any way.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

johninna:

" How come the Al Qaeda managed to succeed so magnificently on that one day and failed so miserably before and after it? "

They managed to succeed so magnificently, because their targets were unprepared for this particular mode of attack. Jumbo jets were supposed to be hijacked and then flown somewhere with demands. That was the expected modus operandi. That is why the standing orders to crew was to give in to the hijackers demands. Nobody had expected the hijackers not to make commands, but instead get into the pilots seat and turn the jumbos into flying dynamite trucks. Isn´t that obvious?

The second part of premise is wrong. Al Quaeda is actually very successful now, especially with so-called Arab Spring. They are now active in the Sinai, in Yemen, in Tunesia, in Libya, etc.

The only thing they have not been able to duplicate is suicide jetliner hijjacking... but rest assured there are new ideas being cooked up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

WilliB - I was mostly pointing out some very curious parallels between Islamic Fascists and some some of their critics

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@williB I feel this is indeed a problem with your technique of investigation. This is a criminal investigation. In which one has to suspend disbelief until one can attain the bigger picture. One needs to understand the people involved, their movements, the groups they are connected with and where their loyalties actually lie. One needs to understand, how the world works - not the pantomime presented to you by the mainstream media. The current scientific/skeptic approach, is to find the first point of failure - then consider the hypothesis debunked and move on - Poirot would not be proud. You'll have to scratch a little deeper, I think. Terrorism has been used to control the masses for centuries, it's admitted, after the fact, in the writings of many a member of the aristocracy and their bureaucratic classes. At the very least, the connections between notable families which surround this event should be investigated, doesn't one think? Or should we just wait for some damage limitation documentary to carefully deliver your mind to the desired place? As others have pointed out, who carried out the event is a moot point.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@hosefella

Those damn Americans! They kept OBL alive for almost 10 years, and just when he could have shed light on who killed >Jimmy Hoffa, they kill him!

Did they keep him alive for 10 years?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@horseyfella

I see the Islamic terrorists as largely unhappy with their own failed lives in a once powerful, but now hopelessly >decaying >country.

Looks like no ones happy.

American troops are taking their own lives in the largest numbers since records began to be kept in 1980. In 2008, there were 128 confirmed suicides by serving army personnel and 41 by serving marines. Another 15 army deaths are still being investigated. The toll is another of the terrible consequences that have flowed from Washington's neo-colonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Willi B woundedsamurai1 has a very good point. The twin towers were designed to withstand a jumbo jet impact, and even if the top 20 or 30 floors were damaged how can you explain why the lower 80 floors that were stone cold didn't put up any resistance at all. Oh that's right you cant can you?, you're just going to make fun of me and call me a "conspiracy theorist" Try to look at it again with an open mind, stop putting your decision before the facts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

One needs to understand, how the world works - not the pantomime presented to you by the mainstream media.

You'll have to scratch a little deeper, I think

really is pantomime and ignorance may just well be bliss.

Ah yes, the battle cry of the conspiracy theorist! The suggestion that somehow you are part of a group of intrepid 'investigators' bearing the candle of truth and that everyone else is just a victim of the machine swallowing media fed morsals of propaganda. But woundedsamurai, apart from scraping the bacterium off the agar in the petrie dish that is the internet, by way of watching you tube clips, poorly edited DVD 'documentaries', or online 'articles', what investigation of your own are you doing? What life experiences have you had to support your position? Or is the net your primary source of information, and you regergitate what others have written? Conspiracy theorists accuse non-conspiracy theorists of being gullible, and yet anything that a conspiracy theorist has pushed in my direction by way of evidence has been appallingly poor, and has merely fortified my conviction that they are a load of rubbish. If you have paid for a book on this conspiracy theory, I wonder if it didn't cross your mind that it may be an author who sees a market of the gullible that he can pander to and exploit at the same time? See, I see a delicious irony that folk like you accuse others of being blissfully ignorant.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why don't You just Fold Down this site-With ALL these "Experts"takin' the bait and answering the Assinine question put forth .You Have become Obsolete!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if it didn't cross your mind that it may be an author who sees a market of the gullible that he can pander to and exploit at the same time? See, I see a delicious irony that folk like you accuse others of being blissfully ignorant

Tamarama - couldnt have said it better myself. Imagine the money some of these hacks have made churning out this garbage. Come to think of it, it's a great scam. Anyone have the number of a publisher?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

All you official story believers, did you see it coming down? Would you say that fires brought it down? Just know that your ignorance is being counted on by the elite.

That's all you really need to hear.

Only a select few can really see the light, and they are the keepers of the truth while the rest of us are forced to live a sad life wallowing in our own ignorance. They managed to expose one of the worlds biggest coverups without ever leaving their rooms because they are simply extraordinary human beings. No one is going to fool them, not the smart ones. We are the sheep while they have managed to use their unique insight to rise above us all. And to think we force these special people to the fringe because we don't want to admit that we just can't compare to their greatness.

Instead of working their day jobs we should put them in their rightful place as leaders, and perhaps it's only a matter of time before the world puts them on the pedestal that they deserve. Surely a few more YouTube links will change the tide and make things right in the world.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Tamarama I think you are theorizing that 'conspiracy theorists' are conspiring. :)

What books do you recommend? I'm interested.

It's not a one stop deal, but how about you get hold of an original version of Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. Huxley, Brzezinski, Attali also offer good insight. Lord Black is coming out with something soon, I think - should be a good read. Or you could just switch on the O'Reilly factor. No, but seriously - just trying to help.

@SuperLib - Like the sarcasm, it was good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We only know what we have been told. What we don't know is how trustworthy those telling us were, or what games they were playing at the time. Whether it be terrorists, government, or business, all of them have a spin to put on everything that happens. None of them are trustworthy. So in the end we only have what we are willing to believe and that will not be changed by any future facts. According to one recent midwestern college study, even if you provide facts that prove a person's beliefs are wrong, 90% of the time they will only drive them deeper in defending their beliefs. It does not matter what their IQ is, what their level of education is or what their economic class is, that belief may determine what we can see, what we can hear and what we will decide regardless of what is really happening. Be there a objective reality, all we can experiences is our subjective reality.So likely we have no way of determining what objective reality is. All of us will go home with the beliefs we came in with.

In quantum physics there is an idea that by observing, that we change what is happening. Measure light. If you expect it to be a wave you will measure it as a wave. If you expect to see it as a particle, you will measure it as a particle. Reality may be a lot stranger than we think it is. [Grin]

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Christopher Blackwell

Well said sir.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Wounded Samurai, Still taking a conceited position I see. The folk you reference write specifically about 9/11 conspiracies do they? Pretty sure 'ol Aldous didn't - he died in 1963. Neither did Caroll Quigley. He died in 1977. And whilst I think their political and social commentary is instructive, it has no connection to the conspiracies we are talking about. So, you are merely solidifying my point, as far as I can see. If you are interested in reading things to outline the historical pretext to the 9/11 attcks, try The Great War for Civilization by Robert Fisk (it's 1366 pages long though - a bit longer than a you tube clip), or Manufacturing Consent, or Hegemony or Survival, by Noam Chomsky, or Hidden Agendas (or anything else) by John Pilger. From the writers you referenced, I'd say these will be right in your zone, and much more contemporary. Just trying to help.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Tamarama - thanks

I am aware of the work you mention but am yet to wrestle the Fisk tomb. I can't say however that I agree with you that there is no connection based on the author having passed away.

it's 1366 pages long though - a bit longer than a you tube clip

We're talking about two different media formats here - though I get you're point.

Sometimes, however, it may just take a short media clip to get you on the path to a better understanding. Conversely after 1366 pages you may still be as clueless as you were before you opened the book.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't say however that I agree with you that there is no connection based on the author having passed away.

Well, this thread is about 9/11/2001, so I'll hold my position on that.

By the way, a tomb is something you are buried in, a tome is something you read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@tamarama

nice spot - thanks. Never was good at spelling. The spell of spelling eh! I remember Fisk now, he's from a long line of "perpetuate the meme" controlled opposition types.

The nuggets are not in what the person means to tell, but what they have to to convey their message. That's why I think Huxley is invaluable for anyone's understanding of the goals of powerful people exercised through corporations and government. Fisk will have you chasing your tail.

To bee or not to bee - that is the question.

Good luck with the debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man oh man. I was going to post a logical argument here, but I've lost the will to do so after reading these comments.

Most of these conspiracy theories are mind boggling. That's all I'm going to say.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It was done by the US governament as an excuse for the following events.ITS OBVIOUS!!!!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yes al-Qaida did it. Some folks, even loosely associated people, planned these attacks and carried them out. I believe they were radical Muslims who did the planning, not mainstream Muslins.

I'm not convinced that al-Qaida has a membership list. This is the way that lots of informal groups become slightly organized. You are probably a member of a group like this yourself - be it religious, gaming, computers, hobby, or business associations.

I'm not happy about President Bush invading countries that were not directly involved with the attacks. Politically, he felt any action was needed before he was thrown out of office. Those invasions were the best answer his team came up with, unfortunately. I'd have preferred doubling the CIA budget and having surgical strike teams handle the aggressive actions. The US military should not have been used directly. Killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and others around the world bothers me. It is an embarrassment for the USA.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There were a lot of indescrepencies to this. Notice that Condelisa (sorry for the spelling) Rice sent Willie Brown, the Mayor of San Francisco a memo not to board his flight that hit the World Trade Center. Another was that the CIA took the cameras near the Pentagon, where the 757 supposedly it and insurances was taken out on the World Trade Center, days before the incident. Another was that millions of volumes of stock on Boeing, United, and American, were short on 9/11. Al Qaida did it? Not sure only if they were backed up by George F. Bush.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tamarama

If you are interested in reading things to outline the historical pretext to the 9/11 attcks, try The Great War for Civilization by Robert Fisk (it's 1366 pages long though - a bit longer than a you tube clip), or Manufacturing Consent, or Hegemony or Survival, by Noam Chomsky, or Hidden Agendas (or anything else) by John Pilger.

Nice suggestions - I've only read Chomsky and he's a good suggestion for the bright contrarian. I'd like to take a look at the Fisk book...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

209 people are obviously gullible enough to believe whatever the media tells them.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Here are some highly credible people talking about 911. http://www.infowars.com/highly-credible-people-question-911/ You official story believers will one day know the real truth.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You see..Teachers, you are highly concerning about the grammar... spelling mistakes ...you forget to vote..? ( Yes or Nor ) shut up and see what the Forensic Professionals say about 9/11 .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YES they did! its Obvious they had done many Terrorists attacks before 2001. sep/11th was huge so some think it was the "First terrorist attack" ever. Duh! hard to beleieve the Government would spend Billions to "make Billions" we don't get any oil from afghanistan! IF they (US gov) did it, then WHY 4 planes? one attack on the city/ WTC would have been enough for War. there still many Terrorists attacks to this day! Terrorist attacks are done by Brainwashed cowards! bin laden was a coward who was Hiding. "message to Terrorists everywhere, you can Run.. But you can not hide"

Ronald reagan
-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The first time I heard that someone claimed a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I was like "Oh, right. Give Me A Break." But the more you look at the evidence the harder it is to believe the official line on any of the 9/11 events. Now I'm solidly in the "Somethings fishy here" camp.

But here's the deal. We could argue about temperatures, puffs of smoke, and missing gold until the cows come home. So I'm going to make it very easy for those who believe the official version. You only have to do one thing and I will buy into the whole deal. I'l forever forsake my right to question anything else.

Just do this one thing. Show me a video of a plane flying into the pentagon (one that stands up to scrutiny for evidence of tampering, please). Just do that one simple thing.

That's it, one video. And please don't even think of suggesting that I'm asking the impossible. There is no way that the only security camera at the pentagon that day was in the parking lot ticket machine.

Show me the video. If you cannot and you still want to claim the official version then kindly explain why the lack of a video is not important and how the lack of a video does not bother you in the least.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Moondog : When airplanes hit concrete, the concrete wins, COMPLETELY. You can find slow motion videos on youtube , "F4 Phantom Vs. Wall", with airplanes crashing into walls. There is nothing left. That's what happened at the Pentagon. The camera that show that video was not a high speed camera.

I'm all for not trusting reports by the government, when there is a realistic alternative. Heck, I was a government contractor. The details deep inside the reports may lean away from what truly happened, but the big, broad stroke of who, when, where are accurate enough for my curiosity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moondog

Show me the video. If you cannot and you still want to claim the official version then kindly explain why the lack of a video is not important and how the lack of a video does not bother you in the least.

Well, the footage that does exist is poor, there is no question of that. But from what I have seen, there is no video footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon either. There seems to be about two frames of footage that show impact - one just before, one just after. The first has a very slight 'smear' of white in front of the building. I know the mechanics of cameras and image making quite well, and this image is entirely consistant with an average quality camera in a fixed position that uses a shutter speed to slow to take a crisp shot of an object flying at around 500mph. Inconclusive to say it was anything in particular, let alone a plane or a missile. So then, you have to look for other bits of info. There are quite a few photographs of this attack just after it happened that show twisted bits of plane fuselage all over the lawn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg There are lot's of eyewitness accounts, which you can read if you search. Phone calls made from the hijacked plane itself. And, most importantly, if it was a missile, then what happened to American Flight 77 and all of the people on board? Where did they go? What is the plausible and resonable explanation for that? Based on what I can see, the missile theory has about as much cerdibility as telling me that the Pentagon was hit by a flying explosive pig. And I'm not trying to be silly, there is just no meat on the bones of the argument.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@theFu, what happens to a plane hitting concrete is interesting but immaterial to my request for video of a plane flying into the Pentagon.

@Tamarama wrote:

... the footage that does exist is poor

No, the footage that was released is poor because it came from the parking lot ticket machine. Is it your position that the Pentagon, the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Defense, one of the most sensitive places in the country, a building chuck full of Top Secret documents and a likely target for everything from anti-war demonstrators and spies to full-scale military attack has a video surveillance system inferior to the corner 7-11 store?

if it was a missile ...

I didn't say it was a missile. I don't know what it was which is why I want to see the video.

... then what happened to American Flight 77 and all of the people on board? Where did they go? What is the plausible and resonable explanation for that?

You want "plausible and reasonable?" What is plausible and reasonable is subjective and beside the point. I simply want to know why the video is being suppressed.

What I want to hear from the defenders of the official line is not info on concrete vs. airplane or questions that will arise if it's determined that a plane didn't hit the pentagon.

Just tell me why you think it's not important that they won't release the video that must exist. Tell me why that doesn't make one of your eyebrows rise even a tiny bit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could disregard the Pentagon issue, if there were just one question. But the incident leaves so many.

How come a terrorist "pilot" who couldn't fly a Cessna in flying school managed to pilot this "plane" on a flight course that was described as "almost impossible, even for a veteran?

How come the "plane" hit the side of the Pentagon that was almost deserted, because it was being renovated?

Where is the wreckage?

Where is the black box?

Is someone trying to tell us that in a high security place like the Pentagon, all there is as evidence is five grainy photos that could be anything?

Considering the sensitivity of a place like the Pentagon, how come there was no air protection?

How come the hole in the Pentagon is a circle? What about the engines? Wings?

If someone can answer all these questions honestly, I will believe the story.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Moondog, Yes, I think it is possible that there is no other footage.

I didn't say it was a missile

OK, but as you know, that is what conspiracy theorists like to champion. What do you think it was?

What is plausible and reasonable is subjective and beside the point

Right, well that's convenient, isn't it? But I guess not really surprising, all things considered.

I simply want to know why the video is being suppressed.

What video?

Do you completely disregard the eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the building? If so, why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tamarama wrote:

I think it is possible that there is no other footage.

Really! You put in a bad spot here--you think the average 7-11 has better surveillance than the Pentagon. There's nothing I can say to that without going ad hominem.

I wrote:

What is plausible and reasonable is subjective and beside the point

@Tamarama replied:

Right, well that's convenient, isn't it?

What one person thinks might be plausible another will find absurd. I just think it's a question to answer if it turns out it wasn't the plane. But like I said, I'm perfectly willing to accept the official version if they show me a video of a plane hitting the building.

What video?

I refuse to believe that no video tape exists. Now, that's implausible (unless, of course, it was all erased, you know, by accident). Do you think there never was video or .... ?

When I was in the military, I worked in a 'secure' building with no windows and only a few doors. The building, which was operated by the Department of Defense, had two cameras on every corner of the building, cameras by the doors and cameras on the fence pointing at all sides of the building. Inside the building there were monitors displaying all the views and a bank of video tape recorders. This was just a random secure building, not famous and not even an especially high value target (at least by comparison to the Pentagon).

To accept your position, that no tapes exist, it's necessary to believe that the Pentagon had video coverage inferior to its less important buildings (never mind the average 7-11).

As for the witnesses, maybe they saw a plane and maybe they saw 'something' and thought it was a plane. Who knows? I once witnessed a murder on a full Greyhound bus. After the police took statements (in private), someone from Greyhound came and took recorded statements from everyone as we rode a replacement bus and I heard 20 versions of the murder, many at variance with what I saw. It's not news that witnesses can be unreliable.

Asking to see the video is not an unreasonable request. If they don't exist, then the only reasonable conclusion one can make is that there is some sort of cover-up in play.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

johninnaha

If someone can answer all these questions honestly, I will believe the story.

No, no you won't. We've read your opinions above and I believe your mind is made up.

There were plenty of photos of small bits of wreckage outside the Pentagon (small bits are all that would be left after a 500mph collision with a fixed object). To be perfectly honest I can't understand why there are not more videos released from the Pentagon either. The camera that was used for the one video released would never show anything - too poor quality, airplane moving too fast. Surely there were many more videos, why not release them?

Of course there was a plane hijacked that did fly into the Pentagon - this is completely indisputable - but why all the obfuscation, why all the coincidences, how did the pilot get so lucky with his aim: all very interesting questions indeed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@pawatan wrote:

To be perfectly honest I can't understand why there are not more videos released from the Pentagon either.

Of course there was a plane hijacked that did fly into the Pentagon - this is completely indisputable

The first half of your sentence is indisputable (a plane was hijacked) but the second part that it flew into the Pentagon is, in fact, hotly disputed. And one of the reasons it's disputed is the lack of video that you admit you cannot understand.

... but why all the obfuscation, why all the coincidences, how did the pilot get so lucky with his aim: all very interesting questions indeed.

Yes, interesting. Very interesting. If you think, then it must give you pause ... to wonder why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patawan - how can you say how I would react?

Contrary to the feelings that you and your friends have formed from reading my opinions, given real evidence, I would believe it.

Like you, I'm a scientist. I don't like nagging questions. I want to know.

There are too many questions that remain from the events of 9/11. Questions that should be very easy to answer. I completely agree with you. I cannot understand the obfuscation, the coincidences, the lack of evidence.

I want to make sense of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Contrary to the feelings that you and your friends have formed from reading my opinions, given real evidence, I would believe it.

Like you, I'm a scientist. I don't like nagging questions. I want to know.

So why waste time and energy on the patently ridiculous stuff like the tower "implosions" that can easily be explained by physics? There's SO many interesting nuggets of inconsistencies and dark corners that need some light but they are buried in the rubble of all the clearly stupid crap on all of the 911 truth sites.

Think about it: if you had a conspiracy that you wanted to cover up, what better way to cover your tracks by burying them in pile of nonsense that most find ridiculous? I wouldn't be surprised if some of these sites are run by people who don't want all the facts to be found. I guess that's what bugs me the most about the "911 truth" movement - there's a damn interesting mystery at the heart of everything but all anybody can talk about is the junk. An undestroyed passport? Seriously? That's the smoking gun?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Think about it: if you had a conspiracy that you wanted to cover up, what better way to cover your tracks by burying them in pile of nonsense that most find ridiculous?

You make a very good point.

Smokescreen.

And I notice it often used as a technique when this question comes up:

Lumping one person's opinion with a "group" then trashing the group.

Implying that someone who doesn't believe the (insert favourite) line is a gullible sheep.

Emotional outbursts.

Emotion taking the place of logic.

Broad generalities.

I fully admit that many of the above faults can be found on both sides of the argument.

There are very few solid facts, and there never has been a real investigation, which, considering the number of unanswered questions and anomalies is probably the most suspicious of the facts that surround this subject.

9/11 was also followed by the US led invasion of Iraq, which was, factually based on lies. And further evidence of the confusion surrounding this whole affair is the number of Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. I have met hundreds of these, both on the internet and in life.

As a scientist, Patawan, you surely understand that many of the great scientific discoveries began with a "hunch" or "feeling." Certainly this often leads to nothing. And if it does lead to something, there is usually a lot of very uninteresting ground work to be done.

I personally have a hunch that things are not all right with the data being presented on 9/11.

Right or wrong, there are many others who share this feeling.

I therefore feel that it warrants a full and independent investigation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moondog,

Yes, to repeat myself a second time, I think it's possible there is no other footage. Possible, mind you. But it's clearly something you are so obsessed with, that it clouds your vision when considering all other aspects of evidence at your disposal. You seem to discount all of them, and you still offer no suggestion as to what happened to the plane or the people in it. You admit it was hijacked, but won't say where you think it ended up. You mention nothing of the plane fuselage littering the lawn in front of the crash site. You really want me to believe that ALL the people who saw it happen mistook a (.......fill in your blank) for a commercial jet aeroplane? You think that assumption is more reasonable than most of them actually correctly identifying a commercial jet airliner as a commercial jet airliner? Complete with noise, etc etc? You disregard all of that and completely hang your hat on the absence of something (in your case, video) as proof of an argument or position. Surely, you can see how illogical your position is? They only way I can see your position having any gravitas, is if you can show where these security cameras were that would have taken the footage/images. If you can't, and all you can offer is 'they had to have been there', then you have nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a scientist, Patawan, you surely understand that many of the great scientific discoveries began with a "hunch" or "feeling." Certainly this often leads to nothing. And if it does lead to something, there is usually a lot of very uninteresting ground work to be done.

I personally have a hunch that things are not all right with the data being presented on 9/11.

Right or wrong, there are many others who share this feeling.

I therefore feel that it warrants a full and independent investigation.

I would agree. Let's find the truth, put the conspiracies to bed, or get the murderers and criminals who are behind it all - if there are any other than those who are known.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Tamarama wrote:

You disregard all [the witnesses, debris on the lawn and missing not-dead people] and completely hang your hat on the absence of something (in your case, video) as proof of an argument or position. Surely, you can see how illogical your position is?

No, I'm not offering it as proof. If anything, it's a lack of proof. I'm simply asking for evidence that is apparently being suppressed.

I believe anything is possible. Having first-hand knowledge of the depth of incompetence that government workers are capable of I would have to say, yes, it's possible that it never occurred to anyone to put cameras on every side of the Pentagon. Maybe they just put them by the front door, you know, in case someone tried to sneak in.

Maybe some nincompoop was excited and pushed the emergency degauss button and erased every tape in the pentagon because, you know, the building was under attack. Heck, maybe the degausser was so strong it erased all the tapes in nearby buildings, too. Yup, anything's possible.

But is it plausible? It seems to me that you are willing to take the position that the official position is true because it's the official position. If you want to believe the results of the official commission even though members of that commission complain that they were not allowed to make a complete investigation and it comes off looking a whole lot like "The Warren Commission II" then, well, go ahead and believe it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can believe the official version if you wish but, myself, I'm way beyond that. I lost my naivete in 1975 when I saw JFK's head snap back in the Zapruder film which had been suppressed for 12 years. Before that, only stills had been shown in Life magazine and the Warren Commission Report. The most notable thing about the stills was what they didn't show--his head snapping back. That film put the lie to the Warren Commission. Forget about the magic bullet and the umbrella man and 10,000 other "fishy" things. That film is proof that there was a coverup and that the real killers are still (even today) on the loose.

And that is precisely why there is no good reason to believe the official version of 9/11 just because it's the official version.

So, sure, you can say I'm obsessed, if you want, but not for no reason. It annoys me when my government lies to allow murderers who attack this country (in the person of the president) to go free and I want to be sure they're not doing it again. I'm not optimistic that the tapes still exist, however. What are the odds they'd make that mistake again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moondog, Look, I applaud the efforts and rights of people to attempt to hold governments to account, especially yours. I am no US Government fanboy. In fact, I very firmly believe the US Government and it's various arms are in the very least indirectly responsible for the attacks on the US through years of abuse of power in the Middle East. And even though we are having a spirited discussion here, I do concede that it is somewhat surprising there isn't more footage of the Pentagon impact. That is a fair point. But when the lunatic fringe get the ball and make a dash for the end zone sprouting rubbish about missile attacks et al, it's a bridge too far for me. You have been careful not to make that assertion I notice. I hope you get the answers you are after one day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But when the lunatic fringe get the ball and make a dash for the end zone sprouting rubbish about missile attacks et al, it's a bridge too far for me.

Exactly! Shooting themselves in the foot with that nonsense.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tamarama wrote:

But when the lunatic fringe get the ball and make a dash for the end zone sprouting rubbish about missile attacks et al, it's a bridge too far for me.

pawatan replied:

Exactly! Shooting themselves in the foot with that nonsense.

Sure, it sounds crazy but it's just speculation. But where does such an idea come from?

First, the government says "a plane hit the Pentagon" but suppresses the video. Then, later, they release a really bad video that shows something* hitting the Pentagon.

If shown the video and asked, "Does it look like a plane?" most people will answer "Maybe." If asked, however, "Does it look more like a plane ... or a missile?" those who know the difference between jet contrails and rocket exhaust would have to say "Well, it looks more like a missile than a plane due to the exhaust plume." But, really, no one can say. Maybe it was a white Peterbilt 18-wheel truck kicking up dust! (I'm not suggesting that it was ... I'm just saying ...)

Then you look at the hole in the building before the wall collapsed (round) and wonder why the wings didn't leave any mark on the walls or maybe fall off outside. Then you look at the holes on the twin towers (very wide oblong) and think ... what? I mean, really, what do you think? Isn't that round hole just a bit odd?

Can you see where this is going? Can you think of anything that flies, is round and doesn't have wide wings? Ever see a photo of a Tomahawk cruise missile? If one flew right in front of you (speed 550 mph) while you were driving down the highway could you say for sure just what it was? Would you think, "Wow, a cruise missile just flew in front of me going really fast!?" Or would you be more likely to think "Wow, a plane just flew in front of me going really fast!" (Keep in mind here that a cruise missile flies more like a plane than a traditional rocket.)

And, later, when you, the witness, heard on the news that American 77 flew into the Pentagon, what would you likely think you had seen? Would you be saying, "It looked more like a Tomahawk, to me?" (keeping in mind that most people haven't a clue what a cruise missile looks like). Or, would you be saying. "I saw that plane hit the Pentagon. It flew right in front of me!!"

Of course, you can say that a Tomahawk doesn't much look like a 757 and it's true. On the other hand, it isn't wildly different, either.

So, you can say it's nonsense, but there is a reason people are thinking along those lines. Myself, I don't know. Many things are possible. I'd just like to see the video and as long as it's being suppressed, I'm not accepting the official version.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama wrote:

But when the lunatic fringe get the ball and make a dash for the end zone sprouting rubbish about missile attacks et al, it's a bridge too far for me.

Yup, lunatics. And that's exactly what people said about the 'conspiracy nuts' who claimed there was a shooter behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll in Dallas. Smoke, people looking and pointing at the knoll, strange man with umbrella, magic bullet, phony photo of Oswald with a rifle ... whatever, it was just too crazy to believe ... until we saw JFK's head snap back. Then, suddenly, it didn't all seem so crazy. We still don't know what happened that day in Dallas but we do know it wasn't what the Warren Commission said it was. We know that for sure.

And, I'm afraid, the 9/11 report is suspect as long as evidence is being suppressed. Missiles, pre-positioned detonation charges in three buildings, undamaged passport of hijacker (let's call it the "magic passport" after the pristine undamaged "magic bullet" that made four wounds in JFK and Connally) ... yes it's crazy. People who believe that must be nuts ... just like the crazy people who said Oswald didn't act alone.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Moondog,

Oh dear! The straightjacket fits! Nah, just kidding.

Afraid I'm not going to chase you down that rabbit hole. I'll leave that to Alice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*We saw a video explaining why the twin towers came down...I'm not a scientist but my husband is a mechanical design draughtsman and he agreed with the theory put forward. I personally think that Americans are rather paranoid and are always talking about conspiracy theories...my theory is you all watch too much TV. I believe Al Qaida did it.***

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama wrote:

Afraid I'm not going to chase you down that rabbit hole.

I haven't gone down a rabbit hole. I just think it's fishy that there's no video and I'm asking why.

There's all kinds of info 'out there' that may or may not be true or may have a reasonable explanation. Just one example: Much has been made of reports by firefighters and others of explosions in the basement areas well before the buildings came down. If a fireman says there was an explosion, I believe him.

That doesn't mean I believe Geo. Bush's brother Marvin who ("they" say) was a part owner of the company that provided security for the buildings arranged to have bombs put there. There are plenty of other plausible explanations (e.g., the planes broke gas lines that caused gas from broken pipes to flow down pipe wells to the basement where it was ignited by a pilot light).

Almost everything about the conspiracy theories can be expalined-away or is simply unknowable. Just this one thing bothers me. There is no way to explain-away the lack of video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. It simply doesn't make sense.

And I don't think asking "why" constitutes going down a rabbit hole. The alternative to asking the question (if you care what happened that day) is to cover your eyes and yell "la-la-la-la-la" as loud as you can.

So, you don't have to go down the rabbit hole. Just remember the (round) hole in the Pentagon wall and if, someday, new irrefutable information causes you have a "Zapruder" moment, try not to let your head snap back in surprise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites