PDA

View Full Version : Was 9/11 an inside job?


Forever
April 19th, 2010, 08:16 PM
Do you think 9/11 had direct correlation to Bush and other influential politicians? Do you think it would've still happened if he wasn't in power? Can you really trust your government now? Discuss.

Note: This applies to other countries as well, as far as trusting the government goes on issues similar to these.

Mattysaurus
April 19th, 2010, 08:24 PM
I'm torn between the two possibilities.

It could have been a terrorist plot.
But on some videos on Youtube(which I don't believe fully) showed that helicopters were dropping bombs and that bombs were planted on the base.

But why would the government do that? All those lives, damage, and much more. ;;

Luck
April 19th, 2010, 08:31 PM
I'm torn between the two possibilities.

It could have been a terrorist plot.
But on some videos on Youtube(which I don't believe fully) showed that helicopters were dropping bombs and that bombs were planted on the base.

But why would the government do that? All those lives, damage, and much more. ;;

Oh, it's all a plan of the New World Order that Obama wants to make through Obama Care.
I can't believe you aren't in :(

loliwin
April 19th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Nope, I thought it was a terrorist bombing. :D The government aint that evil. xD

Esper
April 19th, 2010, 10:18 PM
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the official story isn't the whole picture, but without some credible evidence to the contrary I'm not going to speculate. Maybe in 40 or 50 years when all the people involved are dead or near death someone will reveal hitherto unknown information about how it all went down and we'll all learn what *really* happened. Maybe not.

Wings Don't Cry
April 19th, 2010, 11:09 PM
I'm beginning to think my government isn't democratic anymore. Last years we had a poll on if the smacking law should be reviewed, 80+% of the country voted yes and the party in power didn't do it. So much for democracy.

Captain Fabio
April 20th, 2010, 12:26 AM
What they say doesn't add up at all.

The best thing for me was when they said the guy who hi-jacked the plane, and flew it into the towers, was apparently dead. THEN, they found his passport near where the towers use to be.

1) How could he be dead?
2) How could that passport possibly avoid the explosion, intense fire and fall all the way down to the bottom of the centre.

Hummmm.

Ninja Caterpie
April 20th, 2010, 12:52 AM
I'm beginning to think my government isn't democratic anymore. Last years we had a poll on if the smacking law should be reviewed, 80+% of the country voted yes and the party in power didn't do it. So much for democracy.

Was this a random poll or some form of referendum?

Wings Don't Cry
April 20th, 2010, 12:54 AM
Was this a random poll or some form of referendum?

It was an official referendum that was long awaited.

The Fame Monster
April 20th, 2010, 02:57 AM
i honestly cant say. what they say not everything adds up, some does some doesnt.

like the pentagon. when the pentagon was hit with a "plane" the hole was smaller than said "plane" and there was no fire which there would be if said "plane" actually hit.

Trope
April 20th, 2010, 06:22 AM
I honestly don't know. There are so many theories flying around... I do find the whole thing suspicious, and it's certain that the attack on the wtc gave rise to the war on terror that Bush was so keen off.

But, like I said, I don't know.

JY
April 20th, 2010, 07:05 AM
It's hard to say, really. It would've given Bush an excuse to invade for oil...

donavannj
April 20th, 2010, 07:16 AM
like the pentagon. when the pentagon was hit with a "plane" the hole was smaller than said "plane" and there was no fire which there would be if said "plane" actually hit.

Well, you have to realize that the Pentagon is basically built like a bunker, being made of reinforced concrete and limestone primarily, and a plane is made of steel, which is much weaker than concrete and, even at high speeds, would have difficulty breaking through such a large amount of it, which would explain the small hole.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
April 20th, 2010, 07:37 AM
Recently, on a billboard near where we live, someone wrote:

"9/11 was an inide job"

Original spelling preserved.

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 08:05 AM
I too believe there is a bit more than to what the inquiry is letting on, however information and such of it, is quite lack-lustre in the public eye (thus all the theories), so I don't have much of a thought on it. Several things would not surprise me however, if and when some truths were told and things come to light.


But why would the government do that? All those lives, damage, and much more. ;;

It's called a false flag operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag), the government wants the public to act/be/think a certain way to legitimize something.

KingCharizard
April 20th, 2010, 08:08 AM
Somepeople are so niave... of course it was, the us goverment is the most corrupt government out there...

U honestly think the most powerful country at themoment who spends trillions on defense alone could be beat so easily by a 3rd world country, as soon as them planes went off course the FAA knew and should have scrambled fighter jets its policy...

I dont think there was one fighter jet in the air. I also find it strange that the only building not hit was the white house...

Eurydice
April 20th, 2010, 08:16 AM
Do you think it would've still happened if he wasn't in power? yes because i dont believe it would have mattered who was president at the time. i dont think anyone would have known or been able to stop it. i think he did a very good job going after the people, even though it started a war.
Can you really trust your government now?
kinda. i dont really know yet if i trust obama. but the goverment i dont think is truley that evil

Galukxy
April 20th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Do you think it would've still happened if he wasn't in power?
Yes, regardless of who was in charge then it doesn't matter they're still gonna attack to get power of some sort.
Can you really trust your government now?
Well, I don't trust the UK's government because they're money grabbing nobody's but I can trust Obama I don't know why but I trust that guy.

ILoveDragonite
April 20th, 2010, 08:53 AM
No, it wasn't.
(Stupid 25 character limit.)

sabapple
April 20th, 2010, 09:04 AM
I also find it strange that the only building not hit was the white house...

Actually I believe that I heard that that one plane that was crashed (I forget what number it was) because of the passengers fought back and it was theorized to of been heading to the White House, as that was the direction it was headed in before it crashed and everybody aboard died...

I believe that I heard about it on that 9/11 special on the History Channel or something, I think it was called "The Flight that Fought Back." Or something along those lines... =/

Zeph.
April 20th, 2010, 09:12 AM
Can't people just accept it was a stupid act by extremists?

You can't blame everything on the government.

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 10:19 AM
Can't people just accept it was a stupid act by extremists?

You can't blame everything on the government.

While bemusedly simple, there would at least have to be a reason behind this attack...

Bin Laden used to work with the US, and whatever sort of history occurred there as a result, well... you just have to look to today's stuff...

I'd still rather be vague on this topic though, just because there is still so many unknowns... I mean they've just started declassifying stuff from over half a century ago (if not longer). Perhaps they might do the same here, so until then...

robobbiebob
April 20th, 2010, 10:26 AM
Well apperenly there was work done on the building on the floors that were hit, just befor they were hit.
In other words i think the govement fixed it to collapse.
Isnt it strange how both building pretty much fell perfectly streight down?

shookie
April 20th, 2010, 11:10 AM
Isnt it strange how both building pretty much fell perfectly streight down?
Not really. It's all related to exactly where they were hit and the way the buildings were built.

I don't like to think about the reasons why the attacks occurred, because it doesn't change the fact that what happened was awful.

NarutoActor
April 20th, 2010, 11:45 AM
That's pretty screwed up to even think that. I live in Nyc, if it wasn't for my dad taking off that day, he would of died. :c No madder who is in power the government would of never done that. There will always be conspiracy theorist, 8% of the population thinks two pock(yeah missed spelled that xD) is still alive?!

The Cynic
April 20th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Look, the truth is that we will never know. It's like the Princess Diana conspiracy. If the Queen did have Princess D. assassinated we will never know. It will be hushed up. Real life isn't like "V For Vendetta" (great graphic novel, even better film); the truth won't just surface one day.

institutions
April 20th, 2010, 12:09 PM
It's hard to say, really. It would've given Bush an excuse to invade for oil...

I would have hoped Bush would have found a better excuse to invade for oil than killing thousands of our people. But what can you say, it's Bush.

As for myself, I believe the so called 'War on Terror' was infact just an excuse for oil.
I'm not sure on the 9/11 being a total inside job, though.
And I can't resist posting this on every 9/11 thread, i'm sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY

The Cynic
April 20th, 2010, 12:19 PM
I would have hoped Bush would have found a better excuse to invade for oil than killing thousands of our people. But what can you say, it's Bush.

As for myself, I believe the so called 'War on Terror' was infact just an excuse for oil.
I'm not sure on the 9/11 being a total inside job, though.
And I can't resist posting this on every 9/11 thread, i'm sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY

I find it hilarious that people think Bush is capable of such an ingenious conspiracy.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijz1CdUj5fg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijz1CdUj5fg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Unless it's a double bluff. Now that would be clever...

Fxcking Tatertots
April 20th, 2010, 12:39 PM
Everyone blames the government for everything. Is this a new trend among so-called rebellious 16 year olds that I'm not aware of? o.O;
No, I don't think it's an inside job. The conspiracy theorists are just reading too much into it.

Once again, I'm one to think that government is not truly evil; They just need a slap on the wrist to realize that hardships the lower and middle classes go through. At least the ones who work hard.

Zeph.
April 20th, 2010, 01:37 PM
If you were a government, the last thing you'd do is kill thousands of your people and destroy two iconic skyscrapers and national images while you're at it.

Mistakes happen, the mistake being in this case that the planes managed to get hijacked, and that the buildings collapsed.

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 01:40 PM
I'm sure it is not the last thing "the government" would do. And to point out too, when you speak of "the government" you speak about a collection of individuals pursuing the interests of the nation as a whole (or lack thereof in some cases XD).

It might not seem related, but give someone some power and you'll end up like the students in the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).

dc_united
April 20th, 2010, 04:06 PM
I'd jokingly say it's an inside job, since the whole thing reminds me a lot of the first two Star Wars prequels, except without some whiny loser crying about his mother and hallucinations.

When you think about it, it's actually kind of creepy...

Palpatine: Dick Cheney
The Clone Army: G Dub
The Droid Army:Terrorists
The Jedi: The UN

Then again, conspiracy theorists have spent too much time standing in front of the microwave with their tinfoil hats on anyway. I'd sooner believe Hitler when he's talking about 'last territorial demands' then some guy who's probably cranked up on LSD talking about how 'the man' and 'the Templars/Freemasons/Illuminati/Lizardmen/Klingons' are plotting to takeover the world using dollar bills and the internet.

luf100
April 20th, 2010, 05:03 PM
Lol, no, I think it was a terrorist attack...

Fxcking Tatertots
April 20th, 2010, 06:04 PM
I'd jokingly say it's an inside job, since the whole thing reminds me a lot of the first two Star Wars prequels, except without some whiny loser crying about his mother and hallucinations.

When you think about it, it's actually kind of creepy...

Palpatine: Dick Cheney
The Clone Army: G Dub
The Droid Army:Terrorists
The Jedi: The UN

Then again, conspiracy theorists have spent too much time standing in front of the microwave with their tinfoil hats on anyway. I'd sooner believe Hitler when he's talking about 'last territorial demands' then some guy who's probably cranked up on LSD talking about how 'the man' and 'the Templars/Freemasons/Illuminati/Lizardmen/Klingons' are plotting to takeover the world using dollar bills and the internet.

I pretty much agree with the last paragraph, minus the microwave part [they'd stay away from the microwave because according to their logic, it'd prolly put cameras in their food to be spied upon]. I find them as untrustworthy as some politicians [the religious fanatic-like ones anyways].

And funny, mentioning Hitler on his birthday... o.O

KingCharizard
April 20th, 2010, 06:13 PM
For those of you who say it wasn't the government then riddle me this: How was such a retarted attack not stopped? seriously when you look at the FFA policy and the fact I doubt a pilot would listen to a idiot with a box cutter if he was gonna die anyways.

FAA monitors every plane's altitude speed and position 24/7 and if a plane so much as drops about a foot outta the altitude its supposed to be they know and radio the pilot if he doesn't answer after atleast 2 - 5 minutes they are supposed to scramble fighter jets.... why was policy not followed? Also I'm sorry those towers were built to withstand high winds and more they even withstood a bombing in the 90's i believe at its foundation I fail to believe if the weren't destryoed from the bottom that its even possible from te top when maybe 10-15 floors fell down on about 50+...

Think logically about the whole things its like the bible too many gaps and not enough proof to not be a lie...

Fxcking Tatertots
April 20th, 2010, 06:17 PM
Well you can always move to Europe, Asia, or Australia. ^

shookie
April 20th, 2010, 06:36 PM
For those of you who say it wasn't the government then riddle me this: How was such a retarted attack not stopped?
The irony hurts.
seriously when you look at the FFA policy and the fact I doubt a pilot would listen to a idiot with a box cutter if he was gonna die anyways.
I think you vastly overestimate the average human's willpower. You're vulnerable in a plane, it doesn't matter if somebody is wielding a box cutter or a butter knife, a threat is a threat. If the pilots were unprepared for that situation then there's no saying how they would have responded. Prior to 9/11, it was even said that the crew was very unprepared for any threat and their safety measures were mediocre if best.

The FAA's operations manager stated in the 9/11 Commission Report that everybody who needed to be notified was notified. A lot of people solely blame them for what happened, though. If somebody like the FAA was on board for this so-called inside job, how do you think they would feel if the rest of their buddies turned around and went "Wait no we didn't say that, it's all their fault"?

Yusshin
April 20th, 2010, 06:40 PM
Do you think it would've still happened if he wasn't in power?
Most likely, yes. I wouldn't blame it solely on the U.S. government, though. The European monarchy is related to the situation as well, in blood and in politics. They're all just a bunch of greedy satanics who wish to fulfill that prophecy that the Jewish would reobtain Israel and that Muslims would be hated. Obama seems relatively better than Bush, but he still hasn't acted on the situation, so I don't trust him either.

Can you really trust your government now?
You should never trust your government. There's been a lot of crazy crap done in the past; humans just can't handle power. Look at how corrupt people get when they acquire just a TINY bit of power, such as in an online game. There are many, many private servers of online games (i.e. Ragnarok) that are total crap because those in charge are after money and the sense of power and control they get because they have 200 extra commands compared to the normal player. Instead of realizing that they're there to help people, they take control of that and on the side, benefit for themselves. If that happens in an online game, sure as Hell that it happens in real life. 9/11 is just an example of that; a man obtained power and abused it to gain something he wanted - oil (or, money and power over the oil fields). Fortunately, they picked the wrong president to commit the act, since Bush couldn't pull off something like that sucessfully without leaving holes.

@KingCharizard

I don't believe the Bible is full of holes; it was edited to the extent that it became questionable even by religious fanatics (not just anti-God speculators), but it remains the same story written in the Torah and in the Qu'ran, although the Qu'ran is an "updated" version, if you want. I was Christian and raised Christian until 15, almost 16, and one of the biggest things that the Romans implied after changing the Bible was that Jesus was the human form of God. This caused the whole "Trinity" thing in which God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all the same entity. If that were true, who was Jesus praying to in the Book of Matthews? It'd be silly to fall on your face just to pray to "yourself". That's a good example of a hole in the Bible and the literal take on Jesus being the "son of God" (we're all His children after all; you just can't be literal about that). As for proof of the basic foundations of the Bible, it's all around you - you just need to look with both eyes open, and you'll see it. People want physical evidence, such as God appearing, when proof is everywhere. The Creator doesn't have to appear to prove anything, and He doesn't have to cause something to happen that would indisputably prove His existence. This life is a test to believe He's there just by believing in His morals, values, and in the world around. The Qu'ran, 1400 years before the following things were discovered by scientists, knew about embryos, sperm, that human bones develop before human flesh, that there are fish at the bottom of the sea that produce light and electricity, and that wind is required to create rain. It also tells that the universe is constantly expanding, a question answered in the late 1900s by scientists. Another metre further from the sun, and the Earth would've changed dramatically, to the point of us not existing. This life, in my opinion, is a test to see who believes in Him and His teachings without skepticism, and without being forced to appreciate Him. I'm sure if you created something from your bare hands that had a mind, soul, and a body, you would want it to appreciate you without having to force it to. Same thing for God. We don't know what He looks like and we won't until maybe even after Judgment Day.

Article (http://www.facebook.com/#!/topic.php?uid=4903603483&topic=15815)

In any case, something fishy happened with 9/11. The government won't tell us, and we shouldn't believe anything they DO tell us, since it's probably just more crap. They're making a ****-ton of money off of this "event". The media, movies, oil, video games, etc. all add up to a pretty number that feed what runs most countries: the companies. It's a conservative world, and it's disgusting.

Yamikarasu
April 20th, 2010, 06:43 PM
Wow. No. Bush is not that competent. Seriously. I don't think anyone is.

For those of you who say it wasn't the government then riddle me this: How was such a retarted attack not stopped? seriously when you look at the FFA policy and the fact I doubt a pilot would listen to a idiot with a box cutter if he was gonna die anyways.

Like you would have acted any differently as the pilot had in that situation. He doesn't know he's going to die. He does know he'll die if he doesn't do as the guy says. And seriously, the reason it wasn't stopped was simply because of massive incompetence on the part of the government. It was a terrorist attack, and there is no point in putting any more thought into it. We pissed them off during the Gulf War and so they got their revenge. End of discussion, really. :/

Glitchfinder
April 20th, 2010, 07:05 PM
What they say doesn't add up at all.

The best thing for me was when they said the guy who hi-jacked the plane, and flew it into the towers, was apparently dead. THEN, they found his passport near where the towers use to be.

1) How could he be dead?
2) How could that passport possibly avoid the explosion, intense fire and fall all the way down to the bottom of the centre.

Hummmm.

I think you're misinterpreting information. He obviously wasn't dead when he flew the plane into the towers, but the act of ramming the plane, cockpit first, deep into the tower, would have killed him pretty fast. As for the passport, that's easy. The fires couldn't possibly have destroyed everything in the aircraft, and explosions don't just destroy stuff. They also send stuff flying. All it takes for something like that to happen is a bit of "luck", or in other words, the right roll of fate's dice.


i honestly cant say. what they say not everything adds up, some does some doesnt.

like the pentagon. when the pentagon was hit with a "plane" the hole was smaller than said "plane" and there was no fire which there would be if said "plane" actually hit.

I hope that you realize that the Pentagon currently holds the Guinness record as the world's largest office block, and any photos you see of it, that show it in full, will not give you the proper sense of scale to make that kind of determination for yourself.

Somepeople are so niave... of course it was, the us goverment is the most corrupt government out there...

U honestly think the most powerful country at themoment who spends trillions on defense alone could be beat so easily by a 3rd world country, as soon as them planes went off course the FAA knew and should have scrambled fighter jets its policy...

I dont think there was one fighter jet in the air. I also find it strange that the only building not hit was the white house...

First, what proof do you have that the United States of America has a corrupt government, or is the most powerful country in the world? There is no proof that the US government, as a whole, is corrupt, and the only reason people assume that the USA is the most powerful country in the world is because we tend to interfere in foreign affairs, and because many of those interventions are military in nature. We do NOT have the largest military force in the world, we do NOT have the most technologically advanced weaponry in the world (many of these multimillion dollar jets are quite literally held together by duct tape and twine, for instance, not to mention the fact that they superglue the cockpits of the jets in, because bolting them in creates massive drag on the jet at mach speeds). Not only that, but the US is the single largest target of international dissent in the world today, from all over the world, including our own allies.

Not to mention that just spending a lot of money on defense is no guarantee that it will succeed. For example, look at the "Star Wars" defense project, which, while a massive failure, is still being funded today. All it takes to beat any security system, no matter how good it is, is a bit of ingenuity and know-how. For example, you can easily beat fingerprint scanning security systems with the right materials. (I've even seen instances where someone beat a system that cost several hundred dollars by pressing a damp photocopy of the thumbprint to their thumb, and scanning that)

As for the fighter jets, they were scrambled. The reason they didn't shoot down the passenger jets is because they continued to hope the pilots would see reason, until it was too late to do anything. Nobody wanted to get the blame for shooting down a jumbo jet full of passengers, if it could have been avoided. (Would YOU shoot one down, if it was off course, and you had no clue that it was going to plow straight into a tower? Wait, don't answer that. You'll just say yes, because of course you can't possibly see this hypothetical situation clearly now that 9/11 has happened)

And the only reason the one that was headed toward the white house didn't plow straight into it is because the passengers rebelled against the terrorists, and it crashed outside the city. No shooting was done by fighter jets in that case.

While bemusedly simple, there would at least have to be a reason behind this attack...

Of course there was a reason. The whole point of a terrorist attack is to strike terror into the hearts of those it affects, and to make a damaging point against whoever it targets. In the case of 9/11, the attack was wildly successful on both counts, and launched a series of international wars that extremists the world over have exploited as an opportunity to label the West in general, and the USA in particular, as evil, against God, heretics, and a variety of other unsavory things.

Well apperenly there was work done on the building on the floors that were hit, just befor they were hit.
In other words i think the govement fixed it to collapse.
Isnt it strange how both building pretty much fell perfectly streight down?

I think you should look up videos on building demolition, such as how they've demolished old casinos in Las Vegas. It is actually fairly standard for a building like that to collapse in such a way (the term, in the demolition industry, is "implosion"). The only reason that the collapse damaged the surrounding buildings was that it had not been rigged to implode, and because a building that size is far too large to demolish properly.)

That's pretty screwed up to even think that. I live in Nyc, if it wasn't for my dad taking off that day, he would of died. :c No madder who is in power the government would of never done that. There will always be conspiracy theorist, 8% of the population thinks two pock(yeah missed spelled that xD) is still alive?!

Then there are the people who claim Elvis was abducted by aliens, the people who claim that Area 51 has alien spacecraft (area 51's existence is pretty well established. Hell, there are satellite photos that show they have new runways), and people who claim that ancient civilizations had help from aliens. Oh, and don't forget the Nostradamus fanatics who make a big fuss about the world being close the ending, every couple of years. (This reminds me. There should be a thread about 2012, because I would tear that theory to shreds)

For those of you who say it wasn't the government then riddle me this: How was such a retarted attack not stopped? seriously when you look at the FFA policy and the fact I doubt a pilot would listen to a idiot with a box cutter if he was gonna die anyways.

FAA monitors every plane's altitude speed and position 24/7 and if a plane so much as drops about a foot outta the altitude its supposed to be they know and radio the pilot if he doesn't answer after atleast 2 - 5 minutes they are supposed to scramble fighter jets.... why was policy not followed? Also I'm sorry those towers were built to withstand high winds and more they even withstood a bombing in the 90's i believe at its foundation I fail to believe if the weren't destryoed from the bottom that its even possible from te top when maybe 10-15 floors fell down on about 50+...

Think logically about the whole things its like the bible too many gaps and not enough proof to not be a lie...

I think I answered the first part above, but I will repeat myself for clarity. Nobody in their right mind would shoot down a jumbo jet full of passengers when there was a possibility of resolving the situation without deaths. By the time they realized it wasn't going to happen, it was too late. By the way, if all four of those jets got shot down, the pilots, their superiors, and whoever the hell ordered them to fire probably would have been executed after a well publicized hearing in military court, because we probably would never have found out that it was a well-orchestrated, heavily-planned terrorist attack.

Also, I feel it might be appropriate to mention the recent scandal where two pilots apparently fell asleep at the wheel, overshot their destination, and continued on in the same direction for several hours. Were they shot down? No. Were they terrorists? No. Would people have ended up dead or in jail if the military did something about it? Absolutely.

As for the thing about the idiot with the box cutter, that is an outright lie. They smuggled guns and knives onto the aircraft, killed the pilots, and placed some of their own people with flight training at the wheel. The only reason the one headed for the white house crashed elsewhere is because the passengers not only realized what was happening, but used their sheer numbers to overwhelm the terrorists.

As for the bombing in the 90's, the answer is simple. The bomb in question was very low-grade, and it wasn't in the right place. Those towers were built with massive support columns in the core of the building, and one more column on each corner. The bombing in the 90's wasn't powerful enough or close enough to any of these columns to topple the building it happened in. The planes, on the other hand, went straight into the building, and broke several of the inner columns. The intense heat from the fires they sparked then went on to damage and then destroy the remaining columns, including having been hot enough to quite literally burn the fire retardants the tower used.

As for how the building collapsed, that's fairly easy to explain. The only reason a building that massive could even be standing is because of how it was built, with the support columns supporting everything above and below them. With the support columns damaged, the top stories could no longer support themselves, and began to collapse. By the time they finished, their sheer mass and inertia was far too much for the damaged support columns to hold up against, and the building collapsed. You'd be surprised how similar a skyscraper is to a house of cards, in that respect.

As for the bible reference, I'm not even going to explain that bit. That's for someone who has actually studied religion to answer. Well, aside from the point that quite a bit of the bible is supposed to be lessons on moral behavior, and isn't necessarily documentation of real events.

And before anyone goes on with a tl;dr, at least look up your own posts in here, because I responded to most of the anti-government and pro-conspiracy posts.

Sneeze
April 20th, 2010, 07:17 PM
I'm lead to believe it was a inside job, certain things just don't add up. You think it's just a coincidence that the only plane that didn't make it's destination was the one headed for the white house? That the side of the pentagon the "plane" hit was completely empty dude to it being evacuated for a meeting (iirc), not to mention one engine was completely missing from said plane. Needless to say, engines to not vanish in thin air. Also, how much surveillance is the pentagon going to be under? (Alot, is the answer to that rhetorical question) yet they only release like 5 frames, which include a dark grey blur and a fire. Plus, the fact the owner of the Twin Towers (who's name escapes me) took out insurance mere days before the attack *specifically covering terrorism*. There's also been reports of thermite found at ground zero and it's been caught on film as well which, doesn't have any reason to have been there... And, for the record Bush =/= The Government, Bush didn't do it, it wasn't his idea, loads of people will have worked together and come up with this whole elaborate scheme, Bush would have had it presented to him using brightly coloured sock puppets and possibly skittles, signed a few papers and jobs a good 'un.

It was either a huge conspiracy by the government or it was terrorists but they are still hiding ALOT for what ever reasons they see fit.

To all you skeptics that dismiss it without a second thought I strongly advise looking over some of the evidence in play here because there's just way to many holes for my liking and until proven otherwise I'm convinced there's something highly amiss.

Esper
April 20th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Like you would have acted any differently as the pilot had in that situation. He doesn't know he's going to die. He does know he'll die if he doesn't do as the guy says.
This makes sense. The pilots probably thought the hijackers wanted to fly to Cuba or something. Since it was before 9/11 they wouldn't automatically assume that hijack = suicide-plane-crash like we do now.

I still wonder why we've never seen video of the crash into the Pentagon.

shookie
April 20th, 2010, 07:34 PM
I still wonder why we've never seen video of the crash into the Pentagon.
There isn't video for the PA crash, either.
That's mostly because it's not like there were people hanging out around the Pentagon/Shanksville with video cameras waiting for planes to crash. You also don't see much footage of the first plane that hit the WTC, but barely minutes after impact. NYC is obviously more populated, and the second people heard things going on, cameras started rolling.

Glitchfinder
April 20th, 2010, 07:34 PM
I'm lead to believe it was a inside job, certain things just don't add up. You think it's just a coincidence that the only plane that didn't make it's destination was the one headed for the white house? That the side of the pentagon the "plane" hit was completely empty dude to it being evacuated for a meeting (iirc), not to mention one engine was completely missing from said plane. Needless to say, engines to not vanish in thin air. Also, how much surveillance is the pentagon going to be under? (Alot, is the answer to that rhetorical question) yet they only release like 5 frames, which include a dark grey blur and a fire. Plus, the fact the owner of the Twin Towers (who's name escapes me) took out insurance mere days before the attack *specifically covering terrorism*. There's also been reports of thermite found at ground zero and it's been caught on film as well which, doesn't have any reason to have been there... And, for the record Bush =/= The Government, Bush didn't do it, it wasn't his idea, loads of people will have worked together and come up with this whole elaborate scheme, Bush would have had it presented to him using brightly coloured sock puppets and possibly skittles, signed a few papers and jobs a good 'un.

It was either a huge conspiracy by the government or it was terrorists but they are still hiding ALOT for what ever reasons they see fit.

To all you skeptics that dismiss it without a second thought I strongly advise looking over some of the evidence in play here because there's just way to many holes for my liking and until proven otherwise I'm convinced there's something highly amiss.


This post is patently ridiculous. First, the pentagon didn't release much film because there is quite a bit in that building is top secret, and releasing much in the way of film produces far more security risks than they were willing to deal with at the time. The fact that the only plane that didn't reach its destination is merely a coincidence as well. They don't even know for certain that it was headed to the white house, only that it was headed in that general direction when it crashed. The section of the pentagon that the plane his was NOT empty, but it was not at full capacity, either. They were in the midst of a building-wide renovation, and part of that section was under construction at the time. (As were other parts of the building)

As for the insurance policy, I would like proof. Not just hearsay, but cold, hard, legally binding proof that not only were those buildings covered for terrorism, but that the insurance policy was taken out in the last few days, and not simply renewed.

Thermite is another thing that needs proof. It is a rocket fuel, and, while it should not have been there, there are conceivable situations where it could be there without actually having been put there. For example, the Hindenburg was literally painted in thermite, because of an unforeseen chemical reaction that occurred within the surface covering they applied to it.

Also, I would like to see these films you claim to have seen. I'd love to show you what they really are.

As for holes, I think you'll find that with any highly controversial event, there are far more "holes" created by the media and conspiracy theorist than actually exist, often in conjunction with fake evidence or misinterpretation of real evidence. (Look up the reason the USA has a military base in Cuba, and you'll find that it's because we sent the military there after a few papers that amounted to today's tabloids stirred up the public to the point where the government had to do something or face a rebellious base.)

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 08:17 PM
Of course there was a reason. The whole point of a terrorist attack is to strike terror into the hearts of those it affects, and to make a damaging point against whoever it targets. In the case of 9/11, the attack was wildly successful on both counts, and launched a series of international wars that extremists the world over have exploited as an opportunity to label the West in general, and the USA in particular, as evil, against God, heretics, and a variety of other unsavory things.


It would seem the media and government have taken over the job of spreading fear mind you... Turn on the TV... Hear about the latest security measure...

The security was fine before 9/11, people were just not watching the bags close enough. I don't feel any safer than I did back then than I do now.

I don't think the terrorist's reasons of carrying out terror was the whole reason... I mean it was led by Bin Laden... He must have had a personal reason... Not to mention his family being cleared to fly.

There is so many variables that it's quite difficult to put something like this in an inquiry... At the same time, there is classified material... People are too hooked on nationalism and power to realize how stupid they've become...

Forever
April 20th, 2010, 08:22 PM
I don't think the terrorist's reasons of carrying out terror was the whole reason... I mean it was led by Bin Laden... He must have had a personal reason... Not to mention his family being cleared to fly.

Terrorists have to have reason to kill now?

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 08:29 PM
Terrorists have to have reason to kill now?

I don't really like using wikipedia, but in terms of these kinds of things, there's almost no reason not to. Dealing with fact is so much easier... ugh, that'll be another 20 something years minimum.

But:

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

And yes, there is always a reason behind things... Even if the person is chemically imbalanced in the head, that is reason enough.

Forever
April 20th, 2010, 08:31 PM
I don't really like using wikipedia, but in terms of these kinds of things, there's almost no reason not to. Dealing with fact is so much easier... ugh, that'll be another 20 something years minimum.

But:

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

And yes, there is always a reason behind things... Even if the person is chemically imbalanced in the head, that is reason enough.
Why are you linking wiki? It's not really.. giving much insight.

Um, that doesn't count as a personal agenda though..

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 08:38 PM
When you brainwash people to follow you, then it is a bit of a different story, in this case they were using religion as that tool... (Extremists as in cultists).

I linked it, because it gives a history of his life. As a tldr however, he was trained in some CIA funded thing (US) to combat against the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan.

Skip ahead several decades, and he appears to have a deep seated hate against America for god knows what reason...

Forever
April 20th, 2010, 08:50 PM
Or Bush could've just paid him to do it and his hate for America wasn't relative.

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 08:52 PM
Bush had his own company to worry about though, so I doubt that XD :P

Forever
April 20th, 2010, 08:56 PM
But that's what Michael Moore thinks, so it must be true.

Feign
April 20th, 2010, 09:06 PM
Michael Moore is crazy however... Had I been an American citizen with time and money, I would probably got through the government's declassified publicly available documents and decipher it from there...

9/11 is a culmination of about 30 years (if not longer) history though...

Melody
April 20th, 2010, 09:09 PM
I think this is an insane idea, an insane thread, and an insane way to villify Bush. Honestly, I do agree that he was a total idiot in office, but he did the best he could.

If the blame is to be placed on anyone, it should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the congresses that supported him throughout his term. It is as much, their fault as it is the fault of George H.W. Bush's fault

With all that being said, I fully believe that it was all done by religious islamic extremists.

I dont think less of islamic people for it, even us christians have crackpot extremists who twist religious doctrine to justify their actions. X3 (I wont point fingers at any specific denomination)

Forever
April 20th, 2010, 09:13 PM
I think this is an insane idea, an insane thread, and an insane way to villify Bush. Honestly, I do agree that he was a total idiot in office, but he did the best he could.

If the blame is to be placed on anyone, it should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the congresses that supported him throughout his term. It is as much, their fault as it is the fault of George H.W. Bush's fault

With all that being said, I fully believe that it was all done by religious islamic extremists.

I dont think less of islamic people for it, even us christians have crackpot extremists who twist religious doctrine to justify their actions. X3 (I wont point fingers at any specific denomination)

Is it just me or does the first and second lines contradict each other? You're saying that the idea is insane, yet you're willing to put the blame on the government at the time. Then you state that it isn't done by them? o_o

Gary, the Magic Fairy
April 20th, 2010, 09:15 PM
I personally believe it was the first act in an extremely complicated 35-year plot orchestrated by the NWO. I won't go into details, since you all obviously don't care, but it's pretty convincing and makes much more sense than the public story.

I don't believe Bush specifically was involved in 9/11. He was involved in the larger plot, being one of the many puppets of the NWO, and he plays a role in the plan, but this was way above him. He was probably aware, but not actively participating. So yes, it would have happened if he wasn't in power. And no, I don't trust the government... but I never did.

KingCharizard
April 21st, 2010, 03:11 AM
I personally believe it was the first act in an extremely complicated 35-year plot orchestrated by the NWO. I won't go into details, since you all obviously don't care, but it's pretty convincing and makes much more sense than the public story.

I don't believe Bush specifically was involved in 9/11. He was involved in the larger plot, being one of the many puppets of the NWO, and he plays a role in the plan, but this was way above him. He was probably aware, but not actively participating. So yes, it would have happened if he wasn't in power. And no, I don't trust the government... but I never did.

ppl actually believe the NWO(New World Order)? Wow...

One world one rule one peace, yeah maybe on mars...

Guillermo
April 21st, 2010, 03:42 AM
No one here knows, so don't pretend you really do and calling everyone else wrong.

As for the thread, it may have been. There's really not enough evidence to prove either of the two arguments right or wrong.

Avey
April 21st, 2010, 07:42 AM
Speaking purely as a representative of my own person, and no one else, I'm going to have to say that what I think happened on 9/11 was the same as what Wikipedia tells us; what the American government tells us and what Al-Quada tells us. I've watched videos; documentaries; survivors being interviewed; bias accounts on both sides of the spectrum. Earlier this year, I took part in a discussion with my history class, and he mentioned a video named 'Loose change' on Youtube. The discussion we had was most though-provoking, so I searched it up later that night and the next week consisted of me finding out whatever I could about the theories.

There are several reasons I believe that the story we've been told is the real story. Firstly and foremost, I couldn't live in a world in which I knew a corrupt government organised the killing of nearly four thousand people, and it could've been a lot more. The thought terrifies me. There's little that terrifies me but if people placed all their hope in a democracy system that promised to bring out the best in America, and this was what happened... How anyone could so senselessly kill thousands of people for, as most people believing in the conspiracy say, oil from the middle east, just to get a profit and fix up the economy a bit.

Secondly, if you look for a conspiracy, you're gonna find one. I've looked at all the 'proof' to claim 9/11 was an inside job and all though it all fits together, there's very little pieces of evidence that should make you turn your head from the official story (the government refusing to show the recovered footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon being one of them).

Another thing that ticks me off is that a lot of people have no idea of what 'an inside job' means. Lots of people claim it's an attack from the government to (as I said before) invade the Middle East to get more oil. Others say it's what JFK warned us of; the corporate government take over.

Errr, ranting there. My bad.

Thirdly; if this was an actual stunt orchestrated by the American government, do you not think we would have found out by now? You can't hide secrets forever; especially not one of this scale.

As for people believing the One World Order was behind this, or that there were no planes; they were holograms; and that missiles were fired into the twin towers instead... Yeah, I just think that's crazy.

Or Bush could've just paid him to do it and his hate for America wasn't relative.

And suddenly it was clear that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Even people believing in an inside job would argue with that.

Sneeze
April 21st, 2010, 08:30 AM
This post is patently ridiculous. First, the pentagon didn't release much film because there is quite a bit in that building is top secret, and releasing much in the way of film produces far more security risks than they were willing to deal with at the time. The fact that the only plane that didn't reach its destination is merely a coincidence as well. They don't even know for certain that it was headed to the white house, only that it was headed in that general direction when it crashed. The section of the pentagon that the plane his was NOT empty, but it was not at full capacity, either. They were in the midst of a building-wide renovation, and part of that section was under construction at the time. (As were other parts of the building)

As for the insurance policy, I would like proof. Not just hearsay, but cold, hard, legally binding proof that not only were those buildings covered for terrorism, but that the insurance policy was taken out in the last few days, and not simply renewed.

Thermite is another thing that needs proof. It is a rocket fuel, and, while it should not have been there, there are conceivable situations where it could be there without actually having been put there. For example, the Hindenburg was literally painted in thermite, because of an unforeseen chemical reaction that occurred within the surface covering they applied to it.

Also, I would like to see these films you claim to have seen. I'd love to show you what they really are.

As for holes, I think you'll find that with any highly controversial event, there are far more "holes" created by the media and conspiracy theorist than actually exist, often in conjunction with fake evidence or misinterpretation of real evidence. (Look up the reason the USA has a military base in Cuba, and you'll find that it's because we sent the military there after a few papers that amounted to today's tabloids stirred up the public to the point where the government had to do something or face a rebellious base.)

If they wanted, they could debunk loads of theories by releasing a short video of what did happen at the Pentagon, but they choose not to because its "top secret" how many secrets would actually get out by releasing a video of the OUTSIDE of the pentagon taken nearly 10 years ago?

Insurance is hard to gather proof on, financial records of the government aren't open to the public so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

In regards to thermite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=henRQymtt5M check out related videos if you wish for videos of it actually melting through the tower.

BlueScizor
April 21st, 2010, 09:10 AM
I don't think the government planned it, but it was the governments fault for shooting down an civilian plane, (on a separate occasion)

Glitchfinder
April 21st, 2010, 11:53 AM
If they wanted, they could debunk loads of theories by releasing a short video of what did happen at the Pentagon, but they choose not to because its "top secret" how many secrets would actually get out by releasing a video of the OUTSIDE of the pentagon taken nearly 10 years ago?

Insurance is hard to gather proof on, financial records of the government aren't open to the public so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

In regards to thermite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=henRQymtt5M check out related videos if you wish for videos of it actually melting through the tower.

The problem with film for the outside of the pentagon is that it would all be facing outward and down, and by the time it saw the plane, it would be in the midst of an explosion. Who in their right mind aims a security camera at the sky?

If you have no proof that they pulled out a new insurance policy merely days before the attack, then why use it as evidence in the first place?

Finally, I think you deserve to see some real thermite reactions. The first one is 1000 lbs of thermite being used to melt an SUV in half. While it does actually destroy the SUV, you will notice that it neither produces a strong explosion nor destroys much of the surrounding area. The video you linked claimed that the thermite was being used as a heavy explosive, in the same sense as dynamite or other demolition explosives. This could not be the case, since the reason thermite can be used as rocket fuel is because, instead of creating a concussive blast, it produces a steady, sustained reaction that the rocket forces through a small bottleneck to produce tremendous force. That's why dynamite is not a rocket fuel. The second video is the first part of the mythbusters episode where they show a replica of the Hindenburg going up in flames, after being coated in thermite. In that example, it still does not produce a concussive explosion, and merely results in a rapid burning on the materials on and inside the model.

Thermite is not a material used in controlled demolitions, because it is too unstable, and its use in the relatively uncontrolled environment of a demolition presents far more problems than it solved.

Also, I think your thermite "evidence" deserves an informed link (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm), full of links not only to the original source of the evidence you linked, but also to links and evidence that debunk every single one of that source's claims.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lIpa1K51os4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lIpa1K51os4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXjVxOGCEpQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXjVxOGCEpQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Forever
April 21st, 2010, 04:08 PM
And suddenly it was clear that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Even people believing in an inside job would argue with that.

I think you missed the point that my post was clearly sarcastic.