9/11 : Ten Years?!

[Washie]

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.[/QUOTE

Read the rest, yes it was a terrorist attack, but they might have known as nothing happend with the flights that were off path, as when i went to america in 1999, on the way back we accidently flew off path, and after 5 mins after taking off there were military jets next to us, i was pooing myself until the pilot told us what had happend, so why was'nt there military jest around then? plus the american economy raised considerably afterwards.

 

[BHAFC_AMEX]

I haven't read the whole thread (so apologies if already mentioned) but some of the stuff which points clearly to a terrorist attack are:

1) The people on the 4 planes are dead! Just ask their families.
2) Osama Bin Laden said he did it!
3) This theory of planted explosives is stupid because people would have noticed.

But the one strange thing about it is the fact that noboody evacuated the second tower right after the first tower had been hit. You'd think that people looking at the other burning building a few hundred yards away would get out of their tower immediately. Even without knowing your tower is about to get hit, they would assume that if the other fell, there is a high chance of it striking the second tower on the way down.

 

[dingodan]

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.

Its the most plausable explaination imo, and not because it makes perfect sense, but more because the official story is so highly implausable for a multitude of reasons. I frequently see mainstream documentaries which test and cross examine and at times find fault with some aspects of conspiracy theories, and that is a good thing. What we really need though is for the mainstream to tackle the official story. If the conspiracy theories that are out there have weaknesses (which some do), the official story is far far weaker. Its just hard to see just how weak it is, unless you really make an effort to understand what happened, which takes effort and work which, for reasons I can understand, alot of people dont feel compelled to put in.

Its not fair to call people attention seekers, because so many of the people making this case are good honest people who first want answers to questions that they have, and eventually come to conclusions which worry them and motivate them to engage other people. Largely this is about caring for other people and for our future (whether they are right or wrong in what they believe), rather than seeking some kind of reward (which usually comes in the form of ridicule and name calling anyway).

 

[dingodan]

I haven't read the whole thread (so apologies if already mentioned) but some of the stuff which points clearly to a terrorist attack are:

1) The people on the 4 planes are dead! Just ask their families.
2) Osama Bin Laden said he did it! (actually he denied it)*
3) This theory of planted explosives is stupid because people would have noticed. (see my post @ 15:03)

*"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - CNN

 

[Bold Seagull]

Read the rest, yes it was a terrorist attack, but they might have known as nothing happend with the flights that were off path, as when i went to america in 1999, on the way back we accidently flew off path, and after 5 mins after taking off there were military jets next to us, i was pooing myself until the pilot told us what had happend, so why was'nt there military jest around then? plus the american economy raised considerably afterwards.

You may (or may not) find this interesting.
Ray McGovern (former CIA Analyst)

Don't get me wrong, I do find the theories interesting, however I rarely find them particularly plausible, and normally these originate as I said by individuals looking for attention and invariable book deals and appearance fees. Ray McGovern is a clever politician who has made quite a career with his theories. It is always important to challenge the intelligence community and any infringements on our human rights, however often these theories need to be treated with extreme caution.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Its the most plausable explaination imo, and not because it makes perfect sense, but more because the official story is so highly implausable for a multitude of reasons. I frequently see mainstream documentaries which test and cross examine and at times find fault with some aspects of conspiracy theories, and that is a good thing. What we really need though is for the mainstream to tackle the official story. If the conspiracy theories that are out there have weaknesses (which some do), the official story is far far weaker. Its just hard to see just how weak it is, unless you really make an effort to understand what happened, which takes effort and work which, for reasons I can understand, alot of people dont feel compelled to put in.

Its not fair to call people attention seekers, because so many of the people making this case are good honest people who first want answers to questions that they have, and eventually come to conclusions which worry them and motivate them to engage other people. Largely this is about caring for other people and for our future (whether they are right or wrong in what they believe), rather than seeking some kind of reward (which usually comes in the form of ridicule and name calling anyway).

I see what your saying, but conspiracy theories take on an almost biblical religious like hold on those that choose to engage with them. Take JFK for example, it's nearly 50 years since his death, and despite overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald committed the act, alone from the book depository window, still the conspiracy endures and those that hold onto it, no matter what evidence is placed before them will always believe it.

WTC will always be open to questions, many of which cannot be answered. We could continue this thread for days with quotes and counter quotes etc. but the overwhelming evidence is that planes were simultaneously hijacked by persons that had for months before been taking flight training, and flew them into buildings. All other questions are just that, questions which might not ever be able to be answered, i.e. how do you prove a negative? i.e. how do you prove that something didn't happen? How do the CIA prove that they weren't behind it? If they weren't behind it there is nothing to prove the conspirators wrong. Unless some overwhelming evidence comes to light like some communication transcripts, or any material facts, then it is all just first hand conjecture from a few individuals.

 

[dingodan]

Don't get me wrong, I do find the theories interesting, however I rarely find them particularly plausible, and normally these originate as I said by individuals looking for attention and invariable book deals and appearance fees. Ray McGovern is a clever politician who has made quite a career with his theories. It is always important to challenge the intelligence community and any infringements on our human rights, however often these theories need to be treated with extreme caution.

Most of what you have said have been generalisations (no offense). We should definately be skeptical, but that is not the same as being closed minded and prejudiced. If we are confident in our own judgement then we should be prepared to hear what people have to say, to listen and evaluate and then make an informed decision about what we think.

 

[dingodan]

I see what your saying, but conspiracy theories take on an almost biblical religious like hold on those that choose to engage with them. Take JFK for example, it's nearly 50 years since his death, and despite overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald committed the act, along from the book depository window, still the conspiracy endures and those that hold onto it, no matter what evidence is placed before them will always believe it.

WTC will always be open to questions, many of which cannot be answered. We could continue this thread for days with quotes and counter quotes etc. but the overwhelming evidence is that planes were simultaneously hijacked by persons that had for months before been taking flight training, and flew them into buildings. All other questions are just that, questions which might not ever be able to be answered, i.e. how do you prove a negative? i.e. how do you prove that something didn't happen? How do the CIA prove that they weren't behind it? If they weren't behind it there is nothing to prove the conspirators wrong. Unless some overwhelming evidence comes to light like some communication transcripts, or any material facts, then it is all just first hand conjecture from a few individuals.

I dont understand where your certaintly comes from. If you believe it was Oswald as a lone gunman, you are pretty much on your own, and that includes people who have much more intimate knowledge of the workings of the military/intelligence community than you or I do (again, no offense).

You say that "conspiracy theories take on an almost biblical religious like hold on those that choose to engage with them", I am uncertain of what happened and I have said what I believe is most likely based on the evidence. The only person here expressing a certainty about what happened to JFK, or on 9/11 is you.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I dont understand where your certaintly comes from. If you believe it was Oswald as a lone gunman, you are pretty much on your own, and that includes people who have much more intimate knowledge of the workings of the military/intelligence community than you or I do (again, no offense).

You say that "conspiracy theories take on an almost biblical religious like hold on those that choose to engage with them", I am uncertain of what happened and I have said what I believe is most likely based on the evidence. The only person here expressing a certainty about what happened to JFK, or on 9/11 is you.

You don't agree the overwhelming evidence is that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings? Or that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JKF? I've not stated these as facts, only as overwhelming evidence. Until overwhelming evidence is presented to the contrary, then the existing evidence stands.

Where is your own evidence that I am pretty much alone (assuming you mean the whole planet) in asserting that LHO killed JFK? What an arrogant conclusion to make. I cannot be certain that this was the case, however there is no contrary evidence that has ever come to light to refute it (bearing in mind The Assassination Review Board continues to release 1000's of documents from the National Archive).

The biblical religious reference is to people believing a theory without question when there is very little evidence to support it.

 

[Rookie]

If it had been a conspiracy (which I do not in any way believe) would it not have required months/years of planning involving a multitude of people? If so surely something would have leaked out (through loose talk/paper trail) about the planning stage if nothing else.

 

[drew]

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).

And the head of counterterrorism at the FBI who had retired from the post a month earlier was subsequently head of security at WTC was killed in 9/11.

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:



So is there anyone who hasn't worked in an office building which at some stage hasn't had a refurb or the IT dept working over a weekend or whatever.

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.

It is unbelievable to suggest that the only plausible explanation is your conspiracy theory. I take it that the planes didn't crash into the buildings and the footage we saw (must have been time delayed as I thought most were broadcasting live) was some form of CGI

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.

So the video footage is made up then?

 

[dingodan]

You don't agree the overwhelming evidence is that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings? Or that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JKF? I've not stated these as facts, only as overwhelming evidence. Until overwhelming evidence is presented to the contrary, then the existing evidence stands.

Where is your own evidence that I am pretty much alone (assuming you mean the whole planet) in asserting that LHO killed JFK? What an arrogant conclusion to make. I cannot be certain that this was the case, however there is no contrary evidence that has ever come to light to refute it (bearing in mind The Assassination Review Board continues to release 1000's of documents from the National Archive).

The biblical religious reference is to people believing a theory without question when there is very little evidence to support it.

That is not true. But granted it has not been considered to be worthy of publicity. When I said pretty much alone, what I mean is that there is are a significant number of people in politics and intelligence circles who openly have stated that they believe that the Warren Commission was a whitewash and a coverup. "Back and to the left" etc. I'm surprised there are people who still believe it was LHO on his own. But I have no idea to what extend you are read up on this or the events of 9/11, certainly those waiting for the BBC to break the news for it to become a "legitimate" view will probably be waiting a long time.

If you were only saying that "planes were hijacked and flown into buildings" fair enough, but your assertion seemed to be in support of the official account in general, and that is certainly not backed up by "overwhelming evidence".

Out of interest, were you aware of the put options placed on American Airlines in the days leading up to the attacks?
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS News

Assuming you know that building 7 collapsed, it is interesting to note that building 7 (which collapsed suspiciously imo) was being used to store thousands of documents relating to ongoing SEC (securities and exchange commission) investigations, including documentation relating to the Enron scandal, which of course would have been pretty convenient for George W Bush's good friend Ken Lay.

All in all this is a very complicated story.

If anyone is not aware of the 3rd tower that collapsed that day:

 

[dingodan]

It is unbelievable to suggest that the only plausible explanation is your conspiracy theory. I take it that the planes didn't crash into the buildings and the footage we saw (must have been time delayed as I thought most were broadcasting live) was some form of CGI

"And the head of counterterrorism at the FBI who had retired from the post a month earlier was subsequently head of security at WTC was killed in 9/11."

So the video footage is made up then?

Thats not what I said. And its not "my conspiracy theory". Just my conclusion based on the facts. Draw your own.

"And the head of counterterrorism at the FBI who had retired from the post a month earlier was subsequently head of security at WTC was killed in 9/11."

Indeed. His name was John O'Neal and he had been pursuing Osama Bin Ladin until being told to lay off by the administration. If he had lived beyond 9/11 he would have been saying "hey I was on this guy and the whitehouse chased me off him". But he couldnt because 19 days into his new job he was killed, suposedly by the very man he had been chasing.

John P. O'Neill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[djm21]

I can't believe it's ten years already. Watching it makes it only seem like last week.

 

[dingodan]

If it had been a conspiracy (which I do not in any way believe) would it not have required months/years of planning involving a multitude of people? If so surely something would have leaked out (through loose talk/paper trail) about the planning stage if nothing else.

If you had military experience you might think differently.

 

[Lord Bamber]

I see what your saying, but conspiracy theories take on an almost biblical religious like hold on those that choose to engage with them. Take JFK for example, it's nearly 50 years since his death, and despite overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald committed the act, alone from the book depository window, still the conspiracy endures and those that hold onto it, no matter what evidence is placed before them will always believe it.

Serious Question - Do you honestly believe Lee Harvey Oswald commited the act, alone from the book depository when you can clearly see, from the Zapruder film, a shot, comes from the front, blowing his head backwards & to the side.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

That is not true. But granted it has not been considered to be worthy of publicity. When I said pretty much alone, what I mean is that there is are a significant number of people in politics and intelligence circles who openly have stated that they believe that the Warren Commission was a whitewash and a coverup. "Back and to the left" etc. I'm surprised there are people who still believe it was LHO on his own. But I have no idea to what extend you are read up on this or the events of 9/11, certainly those waiting for the BBC to break the news for it to become a "legitimate" view will probably be waiting a long time.

If you were only saying that "planes were hijacked and flown into buildings" fair enough, but your assertion seemed to be in support of the official account in general, and that is certainly not backed up by "overwhelming evidence".

Out of interest, were you aware of the put options placed on American Airlines in the days leading up to the attacks?
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS News

Assuming you know that building 7 collapsed, it is interesting to note that building 7 (which collapsed suspiciously imo) was being used to store thousands of documents relating to ongoing SEC (securities and exchange commission) investigations, including documentation relating to the Enron scandal, which of course would have been pretty convenient for George W Bush's good friend Ken Lay.

All in all this is a very complicated story.

If anyone is not aware of the 3rd tower that collapsed that day:

Interesting video there. I am suspicious of the official explanation, I have to say. And the idea that anyone who states anything that differs from Govt version of events is just 'attention seeking' is very convenient. Sadly, we may never know the truth. Either way, we need to remember the thousands who died that day.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Serious Question - Do you honestly believe Lee Harvey Oswald commited the act, alone from the book depository when you can clearly see, from the Zapruder film, a shot, comes from the front, blowing his head backwards & to the side.

I am genuinely open minded on this one, and have watched many a documentary from various view points. However, the only evidence at this point to the contrary of LHO not acting alone is the hand shot cine film, the separate sound recordings, and conjecture regarding as you have said, his reactions to each shot. I've also seen reconstructions and testimony from medical experts that adequately explain how the shots from the depository would have created the same reactions.

So do I believe LHO acted alone? Based on the available evidence to me, yes. Am I still open minded about it yes, I am not steadfast in believing one thing over another.

I'm only posting this link to show how easy it is to present things as conspiracy supporting fact, when in reality there are explainable reasons. The hunched up jacket is a case in point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy

 

[dingodan]

Interesting video there. I am suspicious of the official explanation, I have to say. And the idea that anyone who states anything that differs from Govt version of events is just 'attention seeking' is very convenient. Sadly, we may never know the truth. Either way, we need to remember the thousands who died that day.

Too right. I don't like it when people claim that asking these questions is disrespectful though. And we have to accept that 9/11 has affected the world ever since, so when people say "it was 10 years ago" that does not remove the need we have for the truth. The casualties of that day continue to mount up even today.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Too right. I don't like it when people claim that asking these questions is disrespectful though. And we have to accept that 9/11 has affected the world ever since, so when people say "it was 10 years ago" that does not remove the need we have for the truth. The casualties of that day continue to mount up even today.

The need for truth only requires the asking of questions; why and how did that building fall down? I fail to see how conclusions and theories help in anyway to answer those questions, and if anything give governments a convenient conspiracy theory screen to hide behind. I agree though, time is irrelevant in this case.