9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

IvaBigWun

Been asked a thousand times but never seen a poll for it in AH so the question remains:

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

bertie4evr

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Wertz

Both.

storker

Terrorist attack unwittingly aided by intelligence agency ineptitude. Cock-up theories are generally more compelling than conspiracy theories, I find.

Stork

4leto

A terror attack and its absolutely and totally moronic to think otherwise.

mikemac

We have a place on boards for the loons OP

Conspiracy Theories forum

Jaafa

Bit of both probably. Neither the Conspiracy theorists nor the official line has me convinced.

Poor Uncle Tom

10 years and that's the best you can do?

Seriously!

Chuck Stone

I think it didn't happen at all.

Ruu_Old

an inside terror attack. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

willmunny1990

A terror attack by a bunch of pissed off muslims with sand in there vaginas

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

A terror attack and its absolutely and totally moronic to think otherwise.

Explain the demolition type collapse of WTC 7. No plane hit this building!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

grenache

The are too many holes in the official investigation's findings to believe it was purely a terrorist attack. There is a lot of stuff that has not come out yet. It's also very convenient that it happened only a year into Bush's presidency and that it led to an invasion of Iraq - a country that was not directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.

KeithAFC

Why was it an inside job OP? Did they plant bombs in the towers or something? I'd love to know how they got the bombs in the towers?

Eric Cartman

it was a terrible terror attack, but it in no way justified the oil wars america started afterwards , both the taliban and the americans are as bad as each other and neither deserved to have innocent lives destroyed , however i would have supported the pentagon being hit by something not carrying civilians, lots of evil in that 5 sided building

4leto

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Explain the demolition type collapse of WTC 7. No plane hit this building!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

2 Planes hit it its neighbouring buildings,,,,,,,next

Conspiracy theories are nice, they mean we are in the know of some secret knowledge, we are important. Or the world is under control by powerful people and not at the hands of some random acts or events. There is a kind of security in believing in conspiracy theory.

But random events is very powerful and they happen under no control.

phantom_lord

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Explain the demolition type collapse of WTC 7. No plane hit this building!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

I'm gonna guess that it was the avalanche of debris?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMibXJjx_DE&feature=relmfu

Mike 1972

Terror attack but one which the authorities had advance knowledge of but failed to stop through either breathtaking incompetence or more sinister motives.

My name is URL

I think the attack was real and went down as it appeared to, though I do have trouble believing that the CIA* had no idea that something was going to happen in and around 9/11. The best intelligence agency in the world failing to pick up on known extremists living in the US and undertaking pilot training prior to the attacks? I doubt they knew what was going to happen, but they're bound to have at least suspected that something was afoot.

*It'd really only need to involve a handful of people.. a couple of field-operatives and their handler.

Laisurg

To be honest i fine the whole ''bush organised 9/11 so he could go blow up the middle east'' story a bit flakey, really doesn't make any sense.
However i really don't think a plane was what hit the pentagon, where was the damage from the wings of the plane? Looked a lot more like a bomb did it to be honest.

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

2 Planes hit it its neighbouring buildings,,,,,,,next

So because the planes next to it collapsed, a building in the vicinity that wasnt hit by any plane should collapse neatly like a Vegas building been demolished?

In Larry Silverstein's own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

To "pull" a building in construction speak is to demolish it

niallo27

IvaBigWun wrote: »

So because the planes next to it collapsed, a building in the vicinity that wasnt hit by any plane should collapse neatly like a Vegas building been demolished?

In Larry Silverstein's own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

To "pull" a building in construction speak is to demolish it

Also didn't the BBC report it had collapsed even though you could still see it in the background

IvaBigWun

niallo27 wrote: »

Also didn't the BBC report it had collapsed even though you could still see it in the background

Yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

Wertz

4leto wrote: »

2 Planes hit it its neighbouring buildings,,,,,,,next

phantom_lord wrote: »

I'm gonna guess that it was the avalanche of debris?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMibXJjx_DE&feature=relmfu

Neighbouring building that was over 200m away with another building inbetween.

If it was an avalanche of debris from twin towers, then why did it collapse in freefall? Structural failure due to impact from one side by heavy debris would lead to partial collapse or toppling...not a top to bottom collapse that canly happen when you remove the internal support columns.

I haven't really a problem accepting that the impacts from both planes and jetfuel fire had the ability in some way to lead to a collapse on WTC 1 & 2...WTC7 however is a dead rat. It stinks, from the insurance policy to the pre-announced collapse on BBC (which I was sitting watching on the day)... the WTC7 thing makes me doubt the whole rest of the event.

G-Money

I guess some people have seen Loose Change. It definitely raised some questions in my eyes, especially about how the buildings fell and how closely it resembled buildings falling when they are professionally demolished. It also was interesting how someone who was involved in the building design said it could withstand a plane flying into it.

But then again there are other theories to counteract those, so who knows!

IvaBigWun

Wertz wrote: »

WTC7 however is a dead rat. It stinks, from the insurance policy to the pre-announced collapse on BBC (which I was sitting watching on the day)... the WTC7 thing makes me doubt the whole rest of the event.

And therein, as the Bard would tell us, lies the rub.

The whole doubt of what really happened that day has the WTC 7 "collapse" as its main argument.

baltimore sun

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why was it an inside job OP? Did they plant bombs in the towers or something? I'd love to know how they got the bombs in the towers?

Explained in this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

but something along the lines of....a few days b4 the attack every sniffer dog that usually was on duty in the tower were taken out for a day leaving it possible for some demolition experts to strategically place some tnt or whatever around the structures

sunflower27

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Explain the demolition type collapse of WTC 7. No plane hit this building!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

Interesting video. The guy's voice is really irritating though.

niallo27

It's the pentagon that is a bit dodgy for me, all we have is 5 frames of what happened, why keep all the videos from that day secret, I don't think it was an inside job but there was some weird **** going on that day

IvaBigWun

baltimore sun wrote: »

Explained in this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

but something along the lines of....a few days b4 the attack every sniffer dog that usually was on duty in the tower were taken out for a day leaving it possible for some demolition experts to strategically place some tnt or whatever around the structures

Please, please, please never use Loose Change to argue the point of a 9/11 conspiracy. It's one of the factually most inaccurate documentaries ever made.

A terrible film

4leto

IvaBigWun wrote: »

So because the planes next to it collapsed, a building in the vicinity that wasnt hit by any plane should collapse neatly like a Vegas building been demolished?

In Larry Silverstein's own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

To "pull" a building in construction speak is to demolish it

What would he know???????

He was also involved in a big court battle about semantics at that time.

The buildings were insured for 3.5billion each if any event made the towers collapse,

So 2 buildings collapsed by 2 planes striking them, 2 events, so the payout should have been 7 billion.

But no he lost, 9/11 was ruled as one event so the payout was 3,5 billion, so he is probably making it sound like it really was 2 events, a plane hitting the buildings and a demolition.

Believe me the insurance companies would not pay a red cent if they thought they could prove it was government a demolition. Obviously they couldn't

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

10 years on people are bound to come up with arguments that it was an inside job, especially since no one is arguing on the other side.

Conor108

When I read "elements of both" in the poll, I thought of this

x in the city

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Been asked a thousand times but never seen a poll for it in AH so the question remains:

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

george w bush controlled them two planes by RC .

Is this not common knowledge...

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

What would he know???????

He was also involved in a big court battle about semantics at that time.

The buildings were insured for 3.5billion each if any event made the towers collapse,

So 2 buildings collapsed by 2 planes striking them, 2 events, so the payout should have been 7 billion.

But no he lost, 9/11 was ruled as one event so the payout was 3,5 billion, so he is probably making it sound like it really was 2 events, a plane hitting the buildings and a demolition.

Believe me the insurance companies would not pay a red cent if they thought they could prove it was government a demolition. Obviously they couldn't

He was talking about WTC 7, not the Twin Towers. He asked for the building WTC 7 to be "pulled", i.e. demolished

4leto

IvaBigWun wrote: »

He was talking about WTC 7, not the Twin Towers. He asked for the building WTC 7 to be "pulled", i.e. demolished

So you are saying he had set the explosives and planned a mass murder of emergency staff for 9/11 and nobody noticed a company setting demolition charges months before hand?

You have to admit that that is a stretch of the imagination.

IvaBigWun

Another amazing fúck up caught on camera

teol

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Please, please, please never use Loose Change to argue the point of a 9/11 conspiracy. It's one of the factually most inaccurate documentaries ever made.

A terrible film

Yes, it's amazing the amount of dumb people out there who believed that crap. If you want to find out how WTC7 collapsed read the report. Don't take the word a couple of uneducated propagandists.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

And the report investigates and disproves the conspiracy theories.

Cathaoirleach

All you have to ask is who gained from 9/11

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25762

niallo27

Did the us goverment spend more investigating clintons sex scandal than on the investigation into 9/11, I think that's true, they didn't seem to care whose fault it was and how it could have being stoped.

4leto

My god Donald Rumsfeld has slips of the tongues

**NOWAY**

He is known for worse then that slip. He was as bad as Bush.

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

So you are saying he had set the explosives and planned a mass murder of emergency staff for 9/11 and nobody noticed a company setting demolition charges months before hand?

You have to admit that that is a stretch of the imagination.

Silverstein insured the buildings for billions just months before 9/11, doesnt that strike you as a bit off?

When billions are involved it would be very easy to get government Black Ops to set charges. Hell when there's billions involved it would be easy to get a demolition company to do that and keep quiet about it

niallo27

4leto wrote: »

So you are saying he had set the explosives and planned a mass murder of emergency staff for 9/11 and nobody noticed a company setting demolition charges months before hand?

You have to admit that that is a stretch of the imagination.

I'm not saying there was charges in the building or any of that but if someone powerful enough wanted to place charges in there I'm sure they could have had.

tfitzgerald

I think itwas a terror attack but that there was a cover up afterwards by the bush administration of the Saudi involvement

Ally Dick

It was a terror attack. I don't believe it was an inside job. There would have been far too many people involved in the organising of it if it was an inside job, and surely one of them would have blabbed within ten years if that was the case ? Nah, I think it was a terror attack, but that it suited the Bush administration for it to happen as it galvanised the pre-text for an Iraqi invasion

IvaBigWun

4leto wrote: »

My god Donald Rumsfeld has slips of the tongues

**NOWAY**

He is known for worse then that slip. He was as bad as Bush.

No. They're both liars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyJXdS2fVZ0

sunflower27

Documentary on 9/11 conspiracy theories starting on National Geographic channel now if anyone is interested

4leto

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Silverstein insured the buildings for billions just months before 9/11, doesnt that strike you as a bit off?

When billions are involved it would be very easy to get government Black Ops to set charges. Hell when there's billions involved it would be easy to get a demolition company to do that and keep quiet about it

No it wouldn't and black ops wouldn't have a clue how to make a controlled building collapse it is highly specialised work with highly qualified engineers involved.

Black ops could blow it up and that is about all.

And again he lost the insurance case he only got half the value of the claim.

AudreyHepburn

A terrorist attack imo.

Folks are a group of fanatical extremists flying planes into buildings and murdering thousands not bad enough as it is? Why do people insist on trying to make it seem even worse? Is the offical line not horrific enough?

IvaBigWun

teol wrote: »

Yes, it's amazing the amount of dumb people out there who believed that crap. If you want to find out how WTC7 collapsed read the report. Don't take the word a couple of uneducated propagandists.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

And the report investigates and disproves the conspiracy theories.

I stopped reading at ".gov"

Keano!

Inside job.... easy for me to just say that, but i honestle feel its the truth.

watched a lot of stuff on it in the last two years and i'm convinced. oil and clearing debts the motives.


anyway....

...each to their own i suppose