September 11th; does anyone else think it was suspicious

[Pangloss]

It's very doubtful that anyone in the Taliban even knew about 9/11 beforehand.

 

Why is it "very doubtful"? Isn't it just "unknown"?

[tomgwyther]

There are no other historical examples

 

This would go some way to invalidate the hypothesis that WTC7 collapsed in the way it did due to fire and gravity. Even including awareness of the building's unique construction - That being the void space at the bottom of the building; a void space where no fires were burning.

Buildings just don't fall down like that.

 

Glad you saw the Tim Minchen reference. I really should have cited him.

I included it because I see the Gravitational collapse due to fire hypothesis as being as questionable as homoeopathy, astrology afterlife and such.

 

BTW. The leg, the piano and the wife are still up-for-grabs!

Edited January 17, 2011 by tomgwyther

[rigney]

This would go some way to invalidate the hypothesis that WTC7 collapsed in the way it did due to fire and gravity. Even including awareness of the building's unique construction - That being the void space at the bottom of the building; a void space where no fires were burning.

Buildings just don't fall down like that.

 

Unique construction!? Did you ever think that maybe the "Soprano" groups running N.Y.C.s unions at that time may have left a few bags of cement out of the morter being used when the building was erected? Aah!! Just a thought??

Edited January 17, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Why is it "very doubtful"? Isn't it just "unknown"?

 

Dunno. When you are planning the greatest terrorist attack ever, do you tell all your friends about it beforehand? People might tell on you or get a little nervous about hosting you.

[Sisyphus]

Why is it "very doubtful"? Isn't it just "unknown"?

 

It is unknown, and it's very doubtful. And yes, that is my opinion, but it's not a "conspiracy theory" - even the United States never accused them of that. It was a super secret operation - why tell anything to bumpkins controlling the territory you're living in? The Taliban have no history of that kind of thing. While Al Qaeda was a global network with global ambitions, the Taliban are just members of an extremely closed society, ultraconservative self-appointed enforcers of Sharia law within the Pashtun tribes. Their relationship to Al Qaeda was primarily that of being the one "government" that didn't kick them out. And then, after the fact, refusing to allow them to be extradited to anywhere that would try them under anything but Sharia law. This makes them technically terrorists under the Bush Doctrine, which is why they were attacked in response, but AFAIK they've never been accused of having an active role.

[md65536]

[citation needed]

 

 

Citations:

Destruction of evidence: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Stifling of investigation, destruction of evidence, and coverup: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Government_deception

[Pangloss]

It wasn't an ideological statement, it was just a question. I have no problem with the opinion that it's "very unlikely", I was just curious if it was a finding based on something specific. Thanks.

[ewmon]

IMO, conspiracy theories are Occam's Razor at it's most film noir-ish! It's easier to think that a few corrupted ones at the top (Bush et al, or whoever) caused/allowed something to happen than to think that 10's of 1,000's of patriotic people within various governmental agencies are corrupt or that the "entire" system "just happened" to fail "all at once" or had longstanding chinks their armor. That is, the CIA's external intelligence gathering, the US Customs's border control, the FBI's internal intelligence gathering, the Department of State's intelligence efforts, Boston's, Washington's and Newark's airport security, etc, etc all "supposedly" failed "simultaneously" to detect/halt this horrible threat/disaster or were all somehow "in on it" or all had serious longstanding problems.

[D H]

It's easier to think that a few corrupted ones at the top (Bush et al, or whoever) caused/allowed something to happen than to think that 10's of 1,000's of patriotic people within various governmental agencies are corrupt or that the "entire" system "just happened" to fail "all at once" or had longstanding chinks their armor.

That's the appeal: If only we could expose and get rid of these known corrupted few then we will be safe again.

 

If on the other hand, a very small group of wackos anywhere in the world can conspire amongst themselves and cause a great deal of harm, or even worse, a single lone wacko can do so without conspiring with anyone, then we are never safe. This is particularly so if our various spy and law enforcement agencies have these longstanding chinks in their armor. Many of those chinks are intentional constraints; we as a society do not want to give free reign to these governmental agencies. The only way to attain true safety is to forego our freedoms and let those agencies have free reign -- i.e., we need to become a police state if we want to be truly safe.

 

In the minds of some it is better to believe in a conspiracy theory, no matter how ludicrous, than it is to consider the alternatives. The alternatives are just too hard to bear.

 

 

 

[michel123456]

IMHO 9-11 is not a case of security of the entire U.S. population. It was a frontal attack onto the head of "american imperialism": the economic power (WTC), the military power (the pentagon) and supposedly the political power (the white house). From the point of vue of the ennemies, it is highly symbolic. And it makes sense to me. I really don't see what is the logic hidden under conspiracy theories. If the meaning of the conspiracy was to begin the war against terror there were surely other simpler ways to invent instead of destroying 4 aircrafts, crumbling down 2 gigantic towers killing thousands innocent american citizens.

Edited January 17, 2011 by michel123456

[D H]

There is no logic hidden under the conspiracy theories. Only illogic coupled with a driving desire to be safe. This desire for safety above all else is IMO a rather harmful one. If you want safety and stability, the best place to look is a police state. If you want rights and freedom you have to be able to accept some amount of uncertainty, instability, lack of safety, and antisocial behavior.

[Twinbird24]

Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks.

Zeitgeist Movies Contains some interesting points regarding the 9/11 attack.

 

I agree with the OP, 9/11 did seem really suspicious. I've done some research on the internet (and not just what I've heard from the media/ TV, which seems to be the only source some of you are getting your information from). Just like the OP, I am not a conspiracy theorist "nut job," but I still find the 9/11 event suspicious.

 

Rigney, I'll try to be as gentle as I can, with no disrespect (wink, wink), but you provided no facts, no sources, and your overall response was rude, it seems to me like you are the one who is uneducated.

 

There is actually a 9/11 petition, which contains names of engineers, doctors, teachers, ordinary people and scholars, who voluntarily signed it (unlike the paid professionals who where named in the "official" 9/11 report, which is flawed, here is another link), which support this "conspiracy" theory, did all these people waste their money on education as well, rigney? (here is another link, 1,417 verified architectual and engineering prosfessionals have signed it, as well as 11,042 other people).

 

And what about building 7?

 

Also, why was the most important evidence shipped away? The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Twinbird24

[md65536]

After reading some of these posts and related information on several of the internets, I think I have a comprehensive explanation of 9/11.

 

1. It was a training exercise. This much of it was planned and coordinated by multiple levels of government.

Repeatedly, there are descriptions of different terrorist attack training exercises planned at the pentagon, in new york, etc. These are always treated as "coincidence", and something that lead to the confusion of the day, as various people were unsure about whether or not it was "real-world" or an exercise.

A training exercise would necessarily require secrecy on all levels (if everyone knows what's coming, then what's the value in the exercise?), and would be a legitimate reason for secrecy and "A joining or acting together". It would be like a conspiracy without the criminal aspect of it.

 

2. Someone had secret motives to make the exercise into something more serious, involving citizens and real-world risk.

The driving factor behind this may have been innocent (mistakes, misunderstandings, miscommunications), or cold-hearted (it may have been an exercise with real-world risk that wasn't expected to fail so spectacularly) or downright criminal (it may have been designed to fail as it did).

The blame may lie with the pilots, possibly trained to enact a hijacking exercise, but using it as an act of sabotage and treason.

The blame may lie with a small number of government officials, who secretly gave different orders to different organizations, so that they would treat it as a training exercise while other groups or individuals treated it as real-world.

 

My first suspect is Dick Cheney.

He had the motive to do this. There were plans or studies or whatever investigating the idea of creating a disaster in order to seize power or unite the country against some enemy (might be considered "manufactured disaster capitalism").

He had the right government connections, and secrecy, and all that... he had the means to do it.

He had ties to businesses that benefited from 9/11 (Enron, Halliburton).

His heart is a lump of black coal.

 

One question is, if 9/11 was planned, then did it go according to plan? My instinct is that something(s) went wrong, and it was intended to be less damaging. Something like, "Let's get rid of these buildings my friends want disappeared, let's test our personel and our citizens, let's create a disaster and panic to let us seize power and go to war, all in one shot. The people will be evacuated and the demolition will be controlled, and there will be a minimal loss of life." But then I wonder, "how far would Cheney go to gain power?", and based on my extensive judgement of his character, I think that he'd have no trouble killing a lot of citizens in the name of creating a bigger disaster, the bigger the better.

 

So, I think most of the planning of 9/11 involved training exercises, where the conspiracy required was just enough to "swap the blanks for real bullets".

I think the secret aspects of this exercise were to test the following:

- The government's ability to control information about the event.

- The willingness of the people to unquestioningly cooperate with government in a crisis.

 

 

Dick Cheney did 9/11. QED.

[Pangloss]

No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks.

 

Evidence against Al Qaeda is extensive and well documented. The Wikipedia has an excellent starting-point for a thorough reading on the subject, complete with thorough and probative references.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#Al-Qaeda

 

 

I've done some research on the internet

 

Therein lies the problem. Although I would say that reading Web sites that peddle conspiracy theories is not "research".

 

But I think many people come to objective research from an earlier error in judgment -- that's just human nature. I would wager that almost everyone on this forum has an "I believed in ...." item somewhere in their past. (For me it was Tarot cards. Open your eyes, people!) As painful as these discussions can sometimes be to read, I've always liked the fact that we welcome speculative subjects like this, and I like to think that our tolerance and empathy convinces a lot more people than the ridicule they can so easily find elsewhere.

[Twinbird24]

Research can simply be defined as a search for knowledge, which is exactly what I did, I did not use scientific method or any advanced university style research techniques, and I doubt anyone posting here did either, in fact, some people did not even post any sources whatsoever.

 

I used to believe the towers where solely brought down by the planes, and that there was nothing suspicious, but then I started reading and looking more into it, it just makes sense that these towers where brought down by more than just the planes. I watched a several-hours long video (not the Zeitgeist video, which I also watched) where a Russian (nuclear physicist, demolition expert, not sure what his title was because it's been awhile since I saw the videos) thoroughly explains how the twin towers where brought down by a nuclear demolition, and also provided a theory as to why there where destroyed (although the bulk of it explained how they where destroyed, not why).

 

Okay, I found 3 web pages regarding this Russian I was speaking about and nuclear demolition, links are below:

http://www.dkhalezov.com/

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/

http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com/

 

The Russian (Dimitri A. Khalezov) made a Wikipedia article about nuclear demolition (not making reference to the 9/11 event) and this article was removed (Just like the bulk of the steel and debris (evidence) was removed form the WTC area and shipped overseas, but there was a link about this in my last post), but it can still be found in the above links I provided.

 

I will have to do more reading about Al Qaeda, as I mostly focus on how the WTC was destroyed, although that article I posted about Al Qaeda (previous post) basically explains my stand on that as well.

 

I sometimes read articles from here, although I havn't visited that site in awhile, it provides a lot of support for my claims.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Twinbird24

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Russian (Dimitri A. Khalezov) made a Wikipedia article about nuclear demolition (not making reference to the 9/11 event) and this article was removed (Just like the bulk of the steel and debris (evidence) was removed form the WTC area and shipped overseas, but there was a link about this in my last post), but it can still be found in the above links I provided.

It was removed because it cited no sources, was original research, and made various demonstrably false claims. You can read the deletion discussion here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuclear_demolition

[Pangloss]

Research can simply be defined as a search for knowledge, which is exactly what I did

 

You used past tense above. This is what's gotten you into trouble. Here's another example:

 

I will have to do more reading about Al Qaeda, as I mostly focus on how the WTC was destroyed, although that article I posted about Al Qaeda (previous post) basically explains my stand on that as well.

 

Responding to sourced evidence with a "stand" is not the action of an open mind seeking truth. It's the action of a determined advocate, evangelist, or salesman. But I'm glad you're going to read further on the matter.

 

I'm definitely not questioning your search for truth. Simply suggesting that it seems to have stopped, leading you to raise questions that have answers that you simply haven't encountered yet and to draw conclusions too soon. But maybe your hackles are just up because of some rough treatment in the thread. That would be understandable. It's also fun to talk about things that you haven't fully learned about yet, it's just risky to state facts about them because they could be incorrect. Better to go in with an open mind and asking questions rather than drawing conclusions. (And "suspicious", by the way, is a conclusion.)

 

 

in fact, some people did not even post any sources whatsoever.

 

Quite right to point that out, btw. Always correct to ask for sources here. That doesn't mean they're wrong, though, it just means they didn't support their statements.

[Twinbird24]

My "hackles aren't up" ... It's just that some people on here seem to think I'm uneducated and blind to the truth because I have a reasonable opinion on this subject that I can back up with sources. No one on here has given me an explanation of why the steel and debris (evidence) from the WTC collapse was shipped out so fast to other countries, to me, this is suspicious. And why am I being accused of having a "stand" on this matter, everyone who replied here has a stand on this matter. I also read through the Nuclear Demolition Wikipedia page discussion, and Dimitri A. Khalezov seems to defend his claims quite reasonably in the discussion. What about the molten steel found weeks after the collapse? What about eyewitness reports specifically referring to massive underground explosions?

 

You accuse me of having a stand, and to not "state facts" because "they could be incorrect", not having "fully learned" this subject, saying I could be "incorrect", to "go in with an open mind and asking questions rather than drawing conclusions." You also have a stand, you obviously have also drawn conclusions, and from your condescending reply, it seems you think you already know everything about this subject, and don't wan't to respond to some of the things I've posted, like the things I've mentioned above (the steel being shipped out, etc.) I've done reading and I've watched movies on this subject, I didn't just start reading about this yesterday. And I do have an open mind, I used to think that the WTC wasn't brought down with explosions, but then as I did more reading and watching, I started to become suspicious, and this is what make sense to me (and thousands of other people as well).

Edited January 19, 2011 by Twinbird24

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No one on here has given me an explanation of why the steel and debris (evidence) from the WTC collapse was shipped out so fast to other countries, to me, this is suspicious.

If you were The Government, and a building had just been demolished by terrorists in large planes, you would not see reason to keep around a few thousand tons of damaged steel, because you have no need to collect evidence. Terrorists in large planes just flew into the building. What exactly would you want to find? You certainly aren't expecting to need evidence to counter theories that nuclear bombs were planted in the buildings.

 

The 9/11 Commission was set up a year after the attacks, and the NIST investigation around that time. In the intervening months, why would they keep around heaps of steel rubbish?

[ydoaPs]

You certainly aren't expecting to need evidence to counter theories that nuclear bombs were planted in the buildings.

We do have evidence that it wasn't nuclear bombs; New York.

[insane_alien]

and the absolutely stunning lack of an increase in radiation levels around new york.

 

even if this was the cleanest nuclear bomb ever made (and also the lowest yield which makes it even more unlikely) there would still be a load of highly radioactive materials thrown about. we would have seen people with radiation poisoning in the aftermath.

 

now, you've seen the pictures and video. EVERYBODY was covered in dust. it would be in their lungs, stomachs, mouths, nostrils, under their fingers, ground into their skin and it'd be radioactive.

 

as there were zero cases of radiation poisoning (apart from the usual people undergoing radiotherapy which are intentional cases of radiation poisoning and not related to the towers) then we can conclude there was no nuclear bomb.

 

also, where was the incredibly loud 'crack' sound of a nuclear blast at close range? nuclear bombs don't sound like a rumble unless you are far away. just like lightning within about 4-5 miles sounds sharp but further away and its a rolling rumble.

 

and if it was a nuke it'd be LOUD. i don't think you could even pass it off as a half tonne of C4 either. which would be more likely.

[A Tripolation]

Wait, there are actually people that think it was a nuclear detonation? Now I can see how you would maybe entertain C4, but nukes? Why have I never heard of this craziness before?

[Marat]

I still wonder what happened to the four black boxes (two per plane) that crashed with the airlines at the WTC on 9/11. It is quite unusual for black boxes not to be recovered, given that they are designed to survive for half an hour in 1800 degree temperatures after a direct crash into the ground at full speed, which was worse than the conditions they were exposed to on 9/11. The expectation is so great that all black boxes will be recovered that Honeywell Aeronautics claims that it had a 100% recovery rate for the black boxes it installed on planes until those on the airliner that crashed into the Atlantic on a flight from Brazil in 2009 were lost -- not because they disintegrated, but because they could not be located at the bottom of the ocean. Given these expectations and the design characteristics, the fact that not one of the four black boxes from 9/11 was found seems suspicious, especially in view of the extremely careful sifting of the debris from the 9/11 crash site, which was able even to recover small bones sufficiently intact to identify some of the people killed in the attack.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That is strange, and I wonder what sort of recovery features the boxes on those planes carried. Did they emit audible signals? Were they sufficiently crash-resistant to handle being flown into a building? Just how fire-resistant were they?

 

I don't think NIST or the 9/11 Commission would have addressed this, so we'd have to look elsewhere for answers.

[Pantaz]

Wait, there are actually people that think it was a nuclear detonation? Now I can see how you would maybe entertain C4, but nukes? Why have I never heard of this craziness before?

I heard they were planted in the basement.

 

The 9/11 CT forum at JREF makes for some highly entertaining reading. They also have a very good collection of links to resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.