9/11 : Ten Years?!

[Tricky Dicky]

They are horrible bastards and i have no compunction whatsoever in wishing that lutnick and co had been in the wtc when the plane hit, he's a vile piece of shit.

As they made me redundant, rather needlessly, after 14 years of being on-call 24/7, I don't exactly hold them in high esteem myself !! Not that I'm bitter

 

[albiongirl]

I can not believe it's been 10yrs already watching a programme last night it still seems sureal. I've just seen on the South East lunch time news an interview with Robert Eaton's sister and REMF was mentioned . The full interview is on their website. Very moving.

 

[HovaGirl]

I didn't use the word 'conspiracy', I said theory and I explained why it may have been the case. I saw the Bush thing and if you believe politicians by their 'sincerity', best of luck to you.

What about the heartbroken young widows, which is the bit you were responding to?

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I think regardless of the rights and wrongs of US Foreign policy (and I do think they are wrong in their views), its abhorrent to target innocent people. The same types of people as you and me. Palestinians and others who support their cause may have a point and if they targetted the US military then fair dos in war. What Bin Laden and his cronies did on 9/11 was out and out murder. You will note that I have not used the word Muslim, cos I dont believe for one second that "ordinary" muslims would agree with 9/11- if anything their lives have been made a lot lot worse since. Bin Laden was a disaster for them - I'm glad that this evil person is dead and hope that he had a very painful death.

As for conspiracy theories. Total rubbish. They are dreamt up to try and back up their own warped opinions . Bin Laden had been trying for years to create a massive terrorist atrocity (The Twin Towers had been tageteed before). Well he managed it. It wasn't the CIA or MOSSAD or anything else. Just a very Evil guy and very evil people who followed him. Nothing else.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

What about the heartbroken young widows, which is the bit you were responding to?

I didn't at any point refer to widows, I referred to the bereaved families that could gain comfort from being told their family members had downed the plane as an act of heroism. I'm not even saying that wasn't the case, I am purely suggesting that another theory is the USAF took it down, which would have been the correct thing to do and the Government gave the credit to the hostages. I don't see a problem if they took that line.

 

[dingodan]

Its very very difficult to know exactly what happened on 9/11, the debris from the tower were shipped off as scrap almost immediately making any forensic examination (which would be standard given the circumstances) virtually impossible.

Many people in this thread have mentioned the difficulty in rigging a building with explosives without being noticed, and I agree the controlled demolition theory would require access to the towers before hand.

With this in mind it is interesting to note two things.

In charge of security at the World Trade Centre was Securacom, a director of Securacom was Marvin Bush (George W Bush's younger brother) and the CEO was Wirt D Walker (cousin to GWB).

There was a "power down" in the weekend prior to the attacks, and the refitting of "internet cables" throughout the towers.

As described by Scott Forbes, senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, in this short 3 minute video:



Again it is very difficult to say what happened with certainty. On balance, all things considered, I believe that the only plausable explanation is that this was a military style operation, carried out by rogue elements of the whitehouse and intelligence community, to further a foriegn and domestic policy agenda.

 

[goldstone]

I didn't at any point refer to widows, I referred to the bereaved families that could gain comfort from being told their family members had downed the plane as an act of heroism. I'm not even saying that wasn't the case, I am purely suggesting that another theory is the USAF took it down, which would have been the correct thing to do and the Government gave the credit to the hostages. I don't see a problem if they took that line.

If they did shoot it down it probably was the right thing to do ... in the circumstances ... but there'll be a fair few people who know about it ... including the poor bloke who did the deed ... so surprised nothing has got out. Top secret and all that I'm sure, but surely someone somewhere would have leaked something.

I never figured out (but admitedly I never read a lot about it) why the plane crashed when the passengers were trying to overpower the hijackers. It's a long way down from cruising height.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Its very very difficult to know exactly what happened on 9/11, the debris from the tower were shipped off as scrap almost immediately making any forensic examination (which would be standard given the circumstances) virtually impossible.

Many people in this thread have mentioned the difficulty in rigging a building with explosives without being noticed, and I agree the controlled demolition theory would require access to the towers before hand.

With this in mind it is interesting to note two things.

In charge of security at the World Trade Centre was Securacom, a director of Securacom was Marvin Bush (George W Bush's younger brother) and the CEO was Wirt D Walker (cousin to GWB).

There was a "power down" in the weekend prior to the attacks, and the refitting of "internet cables" throughout the towers.

As described by Scott Forbes, senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, in this short 3 minute video:



Again it is very difficult to say what happened with certainty. On balance, all things considered, I believe that the only plausable explanation is that this was a military style operation, carried out by rogue elements of the whitehouse and intelligence community, to further a foriegn and domestic policy agenda.

Against the even more plausible explanation that it was a terrorist atrocity - murder plotted by an extremely evil person (Bin Laden) nad carried out by evil men following his warped idelogy.

 

[sten_super]

Against the even more plausible explanation that it was a terrorist atrocity - murder plotted by an extremely evil person (Bin Laden) nad carried out by evil men following his warped idelogy.

Agreed. If the standards of 'plausibility' are so low that an internal US military operation is considered plausible, to say that the most obvious (and compelling) logic of a terrorist attack isn't plausible is ridiculous.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Again it is very difficult to say what happened with certainty. On balance, all things considered, I believe that the only plausable explanation is that this was a military style operation, carried out by rogue elements of the whitehouse and intelligence community, to further a foriegn and domestic policy agenda.

The only plausible explanation is that 2 separate jet aircraft were hijacked and crashed into 2 buildings which withstood the impacts, remained intact for over 100mins before collapsing separately. Structurally it is clear where the failures occurred and why the towers collapsed in the way that they did. Conspiracies sell books and documentaries. They are compelling Don Dellio's 'Libra' is a masterpiece, however like the film JFK it is complete fiction.

Hopefully you are dangling some bait which I have just taken. That is the only plausable explanation for stating a conspiracy theory is the only plausable explanation!

 

[dingodan]

Against the even more plausible explanation that it was a terrorist atrocity - murder plotted by an extremely evil person (Bin Laden) nad carried out by evil men following his warped idelogy.

That might be plausible, but there are significant problems with it. The biggest problem for me is the difficulty in controlling and directing a passanger plane in the way that the terrorists are alleged to have done.

E.g.

"[Flight 77] Could not possibly have flown at those speeds that they said it did without going into a high speed stall...The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G manouvers, that plane would have fallen out of the sky..." - Russ Wittenburg - Commercial and Air Force Pilot with experience flying the planes used on 9/11 (statement to Wing TV).

"The speed, the manouverability, the way that he turned, we all thought...all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that it was a military plane..." - Danielle O'brien ATC at Dulles International Airport (statement to ABC News 14/09/01).

This is not the only problem with the Official story, but for me it is a pretty big one.

 

[zfleas]

I didn't at any point refer to widows, I referred to the bereaved families that could gain comfort from being told their family members had downed the plane as an act of heroism. I'm not even saying that wasn't the case, I am purely suggesting that another theory is the USAF took it down, which would have been the correct thing to do and the Government gave the credit to the hostages. I don't see a problem if they took that line.

IF the govenment did take them down - that would probably be the best thing they could do imo. Saves a massive outcry from relatives etc and probably helps their families on the road to getting their lives back on track.

 

[dingodan]

Agreed. If the standards of 'plausibility' are so low that an internal US military operation is considered plausible, to say that the most obvious (and compelling) logic of a terrorist attack isn't plausible is ridiculous.

Have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods? Or the Iran Contra affair?

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This really comes down to how we percieve the military/intelligence community. How plausable something is has to be based on the facts, you cant just go on whether you believe the government would do it, or whether a group of terrorists would do it.

No doubt we would agree, terrorists would do it and the governement would be less likely to than the terrorists would. But we should be asking not just who would do it, but who realistically could do it (based on the facts of the day) and more importantly who did do it (again, we have to look at specifically what happened and how).

 

[Washie]

It hit the pentagon, the biggest military building in the world, where plane flights are not allowed to fly over, and they did not see it coming? plus, all the flights were off path, they would have sent something up to see what was the problem or to steer them back on path, where were these planes? so i think they knew it would happen, i mean bush wasn't too surprised when it happened, it was a terrorist attack, but i feel than they almost knew it would happen.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That might be plausible, but there are significant problems with it. The biggest problem for me is the difficulty in controlling and directing a passanger plane in the way that the terrorists are alleged to have done.

E.g.

"[Flight 77] Could not possibly have flown at those speeds that they said it did without going into a high speed stall...The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G manouvers, that plane would have fallen out of the sky..." - Russ Wittenburg - Commercial and Air Force Pilot with experience flying the planes used on 9/11 (statement to Wing TV).

"The speed, the manouverability, the way that he turned, we all thought...all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that it was a military plane..." - Danielle O'brien ATC at Dulles International Airport (statement to ABC News 14/09/01).

This is not the only problem with the Official story, but for me it is a pretty big one.

Conjecture from individual sources looking for some limelight. Same as the JFK theories that you couldn't fire the shots from Oswald's rifle as quick as he did, but in reality you could. I have no problem with you lapping up conspiracy theories, but they are hardly the only plausible explanations.

 

[mlg57]

I visited New York last week and went to the Memorial centre. The three us of that went were very moved by the stories, pictures and videos from that fateful day. I am sure it was not a conspiracy but mistakes were made. The new One World Trade Centre will be America's tallest building as 1776 feet (USA Independence year). It will have a central steel column supported by 3 foot thick walls on all sides. The base is a concrete windowless lobby that is 61 feet high before the floors actually begin. It should withstand a truck bomb. Work is going well and they hope to be at 1000 feet by the 10th anniversary. It will completed by 2013.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Conjecture from individual sources looking for some limelight. Same as the JFK theories that you couldn't fire the shots from Oswald's rifle as quick as he did, but in reality you could. I have no problem with you lapping up conspiracy theories, but they are hardly the only plausible explanations.

I actually find alternative/conspiracy theories interesting, especially when put as eloquently as dingodan and not some hyperventilating nutter. I then like to decide what I feel is plausible to me or not. Far too big to cover up in my humble opinion.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It hit the pentagon, the biggest military building in the world, where plane flights are not allowed to fly over, and they did not see it coming? plus, all the flights were off path, they would have sent something up to see what was the problem or to steer them back on path, where were these planes? so i think they knew it would happen, i mean bush wasn't too surprised when it happened, it was a terrorist attack, but i feel than they almost knew it would happen.

Why would the military hit their own base? Would the WTC not be enough to get what they needed (i.e. whatever people feel the conspirators were after)? Why ditch a plane in a field? Conspiracies always raise more questions than they answer.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I actually find alternative/conspiracy theories interesting, especially when put as eloquently as dingodan and not some hyperventilating nutter. I then like to decide what I feel is plausible to me or not. Far too big to cover up in my humble opinion.

I agree, as I said I thoroughly enjoyed Don Dellio's Libra etc. However, my arguments are that [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] stated that the conspiracy theory was the only plausible explanation. While the conspiracy theories are fascinating in their own right (and why generally those that make them are classic attention seekers) they are not the only plausible explanation. That is the only point I was making.

 

[dingodan]

Conjecture from individual sources looking for some limelight. Same as the JFK theories that you couldn't fire the shots from Oswald's rifle as quick as he did, but in reality you could. I have no problem with you lapping up conspiracy theories, but they are hardly the only plausible explanations.

You may (or may not) find this interesting.

Ray McGovern (former CIA Analyst)