What exactly happened on 911?

Jonny7

Every thread here seems to descend into very detailed hole-picking exercises.

If the "official" version of events on 911 is wrong

I would like to know exactly what did happen?

It's now 2013, I'm open to proper detailed accounts as long as they stand up to the same scrutiny that the official version of events is subject to.

gnfnrhead

My view is fairly straight forward. They knew about it before hand but either didn't know enough to act in it, or were too late to act on it. I think that's as far as it goes.

Jonny7

Okay fair enough, what evidence do you have that makes you take this position?

gnfnrhead

Jonny7 wrote: »

Okay fair enough, what evidence do you have that makes you take this position?

I dont have any evidence of that being the case, it's just what I think happened. I dont push for others to believe it, it's just my own opinion. I could be wrong, but I dont think I've seen anything to confirm that I am. Unfortunatly it is something that will probably never be proven. Imagine the outrage in America if that turned out to be the case. If it did happen like I think, it'll never be revealed. It wouldnt be worth it for anyone who could do so.

Jonny7

Okay i think we can call that a hunch rather than a theory.

knucklehead6

I don't think everything that happened on that day will ever be fully known, and one of the reasons is that the truthers will always find some little sliver of information in any report, official or otherwise, and create a whole campaign of disinformation.

For people to say the planes were unloaded and THEN flown into the buildings as part of a government conspiracy is too ridiculous for words, yet there are people who insist that is exactly what happened, and they will always obscure and obfuscate what DID actually happen.

Then there is possibly some CIA lad or something who had an idea this was going to happen and was laughed out of his superiors office, and THAT would have been hushed up.

the_syco

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Then there is possibly some CIA lad or something who had an idea this was going to happen and was laughed out of his superiors office, and THAT would have been hushed up.

Sounds like the pilot of "The Lone Gumen"... :pac:

Separating the wheat from the chaff would have been the hardest part. They may have had reports about the WTC, but wouldn't have known if they were credible or not. Also, as they weren't really talking to each other, I'd say a lot of credible info wouldn't have been connected.

Jonny7

It seems to me that 911 conspiracy theories appears to be a case of people more interested in attacking the main story rather than people actually finding out the real truth or presenting solid theories as to what really happened.

Torakx

I think it should be obvious there are groups out there causing the issue to be more complex than it is already.
I think the US Gov knew about it.Too many coincedences, as with the 7/7 bombings
Both attacks allowing both countries to go to war with very good reasons for the public.
Does anyone think the "terrorists" didnt think that would happen?

Is the idea the Pearl Harbour attack and subsequent nuclear bomb being planned/known beforehand, still just a theory?

I am also aware they had all their fighter pilots out on a training exercise on that very day, at that time.
What happened to back up jets and pilots?

I might not know exactly who and what.But I am pretty sure it was not like the official version lays out at all.

It might be that most people that conider it long enough would cme to the same conclusions.
But if the media and others (I include "paid shills" there) where not constantly arguing for the main story, it would be negated soon enough.
The fact this forums has a whole section to this topic and its still on ging in 2013 tells me alot of people still know the official story is bull and also makes me think there is a reason the official story has been held up for so long to cause this arguement.
If you shout something loud enough and enough times it can become true.
A resounding NO from the public is what keeps this going now.And with them probably dis-info agents to try steer them off course.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

I think it should be obvious there are groups out there causing the issue to be more complex than it is already.
I think the US Gov knew about it.Too many coincedences, as with the 7/7 bombings
Both attacks allowing both countries to go to war with very good reasons for the public.
Does anyone think the "terrorists" didnt think that would happen?

My point is that the conspiracy theories themselves are weak and don't appear to be based on any direct evidence. Do any conspiracy theories stand up to the level of scrutiny that theorists are applying to the "official story"?

I might not know exactly who and what.But I am pretty sure it was not like the official version lays out at all.

Which is something I hear constantly echoed. Which leads me to believe that the people who question 911 are not interested in knowing or attempting to ascertain exactly what happened that day.

Torakx

I would say an issue might be, people (including the MSM) constantly throwing the official story into the arguement.
If somebody poses the idea that it was oranised by some americans for example, some other "random" guy will cme in and start touting the official story..
So how does one escape the MSM's version?
You cant really.
Its a great way to squash information too.Now there are so many varying theories nobody knows now where to start looking.
People like me give up with all the bull going around and settle for just knowing in themselves that the view pushed on the MSM is most likely a pack of lies.
I see no evidence strong enough to tell me this wasnt a conspiracy.
There are many issues with the official story,yet it is prevailant...
The MSM does its job imo and it doesnt matter even if a vast majority dissagree, because that vast majority will still think whatever the MSM says is what everyone else actually believes.

For all I know a majority may think 9/11 was an inside job.

Sixtus

Torakx wrote: »

I think it should be obvious there are groups out there causing the issue to be more complex than it is already.
I think the US Gov knew about it.Too many coincedences, as with the 7/7 bombings

Which coincidences? A massive terrorist attack that effects thousands of people I would be surprised if there wasn't a bunch of concidences.

Both attacks allowing both countries to go to war with very good reasons for the public.
Does anyone think the "terrorists" didnt think that would happen?

The 7/7 attacks happened 3 years after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The terrorists probably knew the attacks would happen but these are people who will kill themselves for "holy war" so they just might, maybe, be indifferent to the consequences of their actions.

Is the idea the Pearl Harbour attack and subsequent nuclear bomb being planned/known beforehand, still just a theory?

Yes. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_conspiracy_theory

And additionally it's a discredited theory.

I am also aware they had all their fighter pilots out on a training exercise on that very day, at that time.
What happened to back up jets and pilots?

No thats not true at all.

Firstly the USAF didn't keep alert fighters on standby 24/7 with weapons hot armed fully fueled jetfighters over US airspace before 9/11. Only during the Cuban missile crisis did such a thing occur.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

Furthermore NORAD and the USAF responded remarkably well on 9/11 you can listen to the unedited tapes from NORAD command here

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

[
I might not know exactly who and what.But I am pretty sure it was not like the official version lays out at all.

It might be that most people that conider it long enough would cme to the same conclusions.
But if the media and others (I include "paid shills" there) where not constantly arguing for the main story, it would be negated soon enough.
The fact this forums has a whole section to this topic and its still on ging in 2013 tells me alot of people still know the official story is bull and also makes me think there is a reason the official story has been held up for so long to cause this arguement.
If you shout something loud enough and enough times it can become true.
A resounding NO from the public is what keeps this going now.And with them probably dis-info agents to try steer them off course.

Sorry that entire argument is a oxymoron.

I would say an issue might be, people (including the MSM) constantly throwing the official story into the arguement.
If somebody poses the idea that it was oranised by some americans for example, some other "random" guy will cme in and start touting the official story..
So how does one escape the MSM's version?
You cant really.
Its a great way to squash information too.Now there are so many varying theories nobody knows now where to start looking.
People like me give up with all the bull going around and settle for just knowing in themselves that the view pushed on the MSM is most likely a pack of lies.
I see no evidence strong enough to tell me this wasnt a conspiracy.
There are many issues with the official story,yet it is prevailant...
The MSM does its job imo and it doesnt matter even if a vast majority dissagree, because that vast majority will still think whatever the MSM says is what everyone else actually believes.

For all I know a majority may think 9/11 was an inside job.

The majority of people think 9/11 was a inside job?

In 2006/07 the high watermark of the truth movement they managed to get 500-600 people to turn up at ground zero during the memorial service (they distastefully interrupted the minutes silence shouting "9/11 was a inside job")

Since then AE 9/11 have barely a few thousand members, and are demanding 100,000 dollars for their new campaign. They won't get it. Meanwhile the Veronica Mars kickstart has gotten nearly 3m dollars. The AE truth petition on the whitehouse website has gotten 15k petitions but the petition to get the whitehouse to build a death star got 3 times that amount.

In short getting excited by the existence of this subforum as proof that "the majority of people believe 9/11 is a inside job" is belittled by the fact that the forum is only used by maybe 20 people.

9/11 conspiracy theories are dead in the water.

Torakx

Sixtus wrote: »

Which coincidences? A massive terrorist attack that effects thousands of people I would be surprised if there wasn't a bunch of concidences.

In regards to the 7/7 bombings for example, im talking about the training exercise that was to do with the exact situation and place and time it happened.

The 7/7 attacks happened 3 years after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The terrorists probably knew the attacks would happen but these are people who will kill themselves for "holy war" so they just might, maybe, be indifferent to the consequences of their actions.

Fair enough, I didnt say it was about Iraq officially or anywhere.I ment it gave them an excuse to go to war in general.
As far as I know Al Qaeda were being blamed as well as british muslims at different times from the start.
Later finding the Al Qaeda claim to be false.
Im not sure where Al Qaeda were advertising their presence at that time though.
Maybe it was a scam of a different kind too.
Insurance? construction contracts? Not sure.
Im certainly not an expert on this topic.
Just voicing an opinion.
Been busy with other stuff recently, but do like to comment and get feedback.

Yes. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_conspiracy_theory

And additionally it's a discredited theory.

Guess thats another one I dont have time to recheck.I presume you didnt do all the research yourself and are taking the opinion of that site regardless?
Not saying thats a bad or good thing.Just that I dont rely fully on just googling a CT and then posting a link to it.More a mix of refering to theories and also checking it out too, to see if it seems possible or likely.
The problem with conspiracy theories for the most part, is that they are by default unproven.So I have alot more work and uphill climbing to do when theorizing,compared to if I wanted to take the "mainstream" or generally accepted stance.
But honestly if I did that, I would be bored and have left long ago.



No thats not true at all.

Firstly the USAF didn't keep alert fighters on standby 24/7 with weapons hot armed fully fueled jetfighters over US airspace before 9/11. Only during the Cuban missile crisis did such a thing occur.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

Furthermore NORAD and the USAF responded remarkably well on 9/11 you can listen to the unedited tapes from NORAD command here

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

Thanks, I will have to set time aside, maybe this weekend to look into that more.
I have not come across info conflicting with my view on the response issue so far, until now.

The majority of people think 9/11 was a inside job?

In 2006/07 the high watermark of the truth movement they managed to get 500-600 people to turn up at ground zero during the memorial service (they distastefully interrupted the minutes silence shouting "9/11 was a inside job")

Since then AE 9/11 have barely a few thousand members, and are demanding 100,000 dollars for their new campaign. They won't get it. Meanwhile the Veronica Mars kickstart has gotten nearly 3m dollars. The AE truth petition on the whitehouse website has gotten 15k petitions but the petition to get the whitehouse to build a death star got 3 times that amount.

I never said the majority were interested in important topics.
I just mentioned I personally dont know how many people really believe it was as the MSM stated.
The deathstar factoid is funny though.Not suprising.

In short getting excited by the existence of this subforum as proof that "the majority of people believe 9/11 is a inside job" is belittled by the fact that the forum is only used by maybe 20 people.

9/11 conspiracy theories are dead in the water.

Its not proof and I dont really find this exciting tbh lol
I just think the fact that we had to dedicate a sub section to this one topic, says alot about how strongly people felt, compared to many other Ct's out there.
Regardless of the people frequenting this quiet corner of the main CT forums.
It was more of a general passing comment, than a poll or fact.
I dont come here to win arguements,dont know if everyone does.But I dont.
Honestly, alot of the time,I just post what im thinking right at that moment,for the most part and expect others to be as open and discuss their thoughts without fear of reprisals and negative comments.

The logo for boards does say "now ye're talkin" not "now ye're arguing/debating".
I take things as presented to me.Maybe a flaw, but meh! lol

Sixtus

Torakx wrote: »

In regards to the 7/7 bombings for example, im talking about the training exercise that was to do with the exact situation and place and time it happened.

The train exercise was a paper exercise run by a private company and involved a handful of people.

But Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard police officer, says on 7 July, the exercise he ran was office-based and involved just six people from a publishing company.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8124687.stm

The had no control over emergency services, nor were there any live drills on the underground that morning.

I know this because I was finishing work at 7am that morning and took a route home that took me from near heathrow to seven sisters, I travelled across several of the lines that would be later attacked, and through Kings Cross station. There were NO drills.

Fair enough, I didnt say it was about Iraq officially or anywhere.I ment it gave them an excuse to go to war in general.
As far as I know Al Qaeda were being blamed as well as british muslims at different times from the start.
Later finding the Al Qaeda claim to be false.
Im not sure where Al Qaeda were advertising their presence at that time though.
Maybe it was a scam of a different kind too.
Insurance? construction contracts? Not sure.
Im certainly not an expert on this topic.
Just voicing an opinion.
Been busy with other stuff recently, but do like to comment and get feedback.

Al Qaeda took responsibility for the 7/7 attack

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/7-7_london_bombings.html

The terrorists trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan

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

You seem to be completely clueless about the 7/7 attack.

Guess thats another one I dont have time to recheck.I presume you didnt do all the research yourself and are taking the opinion of that site regardless?
Not saying thats a bad or good thing.Just that I dont rely fully on just googling a CT and then posting a link to it.More a mix of refering to theories and also checking it out too, to see if it seems possible or likely.

No the Pearl Habour conspiracy theory is completely BS.

The problem with conspiracy theories for the most part, is that they are by default unproven.So I have alot more work and uphill climbing to do when theorizing,compared to if I wanted to take the "mainstream" or generally accepted stance.

No, any theory should be provable, the problem with conspiracy theories is that people fabricate the theories and don't have any supporting evidence, twist the facts to suit their theories and ignore any evidence that contradicts their pet theory.

Thanks, I will have to set time aside, maybe this weekend to look into that more.
I have not come across info conflicting with my view on the response issue so far, until now.

Not come across or not bothered to look for any?

Torakx

How can I look for that which I dont know exists....
At the time I researched 9/11, that debunk did not come up at all.
It might be this forum has created a more concentrated effort.
Briniging alot more to light than previously.
Its not that I didnt try to look.
There are too many topics for me to cover any one fully.And of late I have very little time to set aside for research.I must rely on other peoples posts for clues and research topics.
Thats why I keep trying to highlight my intention to discuss.I dont have the time for finding all the facts and it seems years later the arguements change on some topics.

The wiki I read today said Al Qaeda made a video soon after the 7/7 bombings claiming responsibility and that it was then dismissed as a fake.
Again I have college stuff to do, so no time to set aside a whole debate with people.
But since im here on the 9/11 topic.
Is there a video you can reccomend that would cover all the points you would like to have laid out for me, so I can see your perspective and compare? Same for the 7/7 bombings.
Something that covers all the supposed strange coincedences etc.
I must try take your word for things that seem reasonable and fit into my perspective relating to world politics.Which is probably not the same as yours.
At least until I somehow find time to look into it.Maybe this weekend.maybe...lol

Jonny7

Again, this thread is about attacking the official story - plenty of other threads cover that.


What alternatively happened on 911? As of yet I haven't come across any strong theories.

pablodiablo

I would have a number of issues in regards to 911. First I would like to know why the Bush administration resisted an official investigation into the day's events for 441 days. I would have thought it would be one of the first things to happen in the aftermath. Then there is the letter from Ashcroft Rumsfeld and Tenet to warn the Commision that there is an investigatory line that must not be crossed what's the point in having a Commision if they don't have the freedom to properly investigate what happened? Then you have Bush sitting in a classroom reading a book when it was fairly obvious the country was under attack and there was no attempt made to secure the President!

There are a whole host of things that just don't add up about that day and the aftermath. The pilots were regarded as average to poor by there flight instructors but yet in the case of the Pentagon the pilot managed to fly a plane of that size and at speed keep it about 50feet off the ground and hit its target....from the time the first plane hit to when all four planes were accounted for NORAD had ample time to scramble fighter jets in fact if contact is lost with a plane by air traffic control it is standard operating procedure for NORAD to scramble jets. Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 jets were scrambled 67 times...but not on sept 11...

I guess a lot of people just want to ignore a lot of the evidence. It's just easier to believe what we are told and not to ask the hard questions but the very fact that the administration in question has a proven track record of lying should be taken into account also when looking at the evidence.

pablodiablo

pablodiablo wrote: »

I would have a number of issues in regards to 911. First I would like to know why the Bush administration resisted an official investigation into the day's events for 441 days. I would have thought it would be one of the first things to happen in the aftermath. Then there is the letter from Ashcroft Rumsfeld and Tenet to warn the Commision that there is an investigatory line that must not be crossed what's the point in having a Commision if they don't have the freedom to properly investigate what happened? Then you have Bush sitting in a classroom reading a book when it was fairly obvious the country was under attack and there was no attempt made to secure the President!

So what's the alternative explanation for this then.
Why did they stall an investigation, when they could have just had a fake one ready to go?
Why didn't they make a big show of securing the president to show how serious the attack was, or alternatively just not have him in public?
Why not have the fake terrorists be good pilots?
Why not scramble jets, but have them not be able to find the planes in time or similar

Jonny's point is that pointing out holes in the official story (which aren't actually holes and are mostly untrue) is not the same as having a coherent alternative explanation.

pablodiablo

A possible alternative I think is that senior officials in strategic positions were aware of the plan for the day's events. I think it's possible that these officials could have compromised the reaction time of NORAD. It could even be a possibility that the Pentagon was hit by a missile from a US fighter jet. Also the way WTC 7 fell is highly suspicious and looks extremely like a controlled demolition and if this is possible I think the use of explosives placed in strategic positions could have contributed to the collapse of the two towers.

As far as what really happened on that day we will never know because the official story has been published and some people are happy with that and there are also a lot of people that are not. The only people that know the truth are the elite of the American government of the day and going by the lies of the official story I think it's fair to say we will never know the whole story...

pablodiablo

pablodiablo wrote: »

A possible alternative I think is that senior officials in strategic positions were aware of the plan for the day's events. I think it's possible that these officials could have compromised the reaction time of NORAD. It could even be a possibility that the Pentagon was hit by a missile from a US fighter jet. Also the way WTC 7 fell is highly suspicious and looks extremely like a controlled demolition and if this is possible I think the use of explosives placed in strategic positions could have contributed to the collapse of the two towers.

But again all of these "holes" do not add up to an alternative explanation. They just add more questions that conspiracy theorists cannot answer.
Why did they hamper NORAD's reaction if they supposedly had enough authority to get a fighter to shoot at the Pentagon?
Why did they rig building 7 to collapse in such an obvious way?

And this is even before we get to the practical stuff like how they set up all of this stuff.

pablodiablo wrote: »

As far as what really happened on that day we will never know because the official story has been published and some people are happy with that and there are also a lot of people that are not. The only people that know the truth are the elite of the American government of the day and going by the lies of the official story I think it's fair to say we will never know the whole story...

So we should just make stuff up and believe what we are told by conspiracy theorists and be happy with that?

MarkyMark22

gnfnrhead wrote: »

My view is fairly straight forward. They knew about it before hand but either didn't know enough to act in it, or were too late to act on it. I think that's as far as it goes.

I second this,I read that Condaliza Rice received a memo in the August prior to the attacks that warned them that a terrorist threat was imminent.

There's always the talk of it being a false flag incident in order to invade Iraq/Afghanisation. Apparently, there's a trillion worth of lithium in Iraq that they went in there for.

The only reason I think it could have been a false flag operation is because they have previous for it with the Gulf of Tonkan incident.

pablodiablo

King Mob I take it that you believe the official story then? As there was no impartial and objective investigation into the days events we will never know the truth. The only people who know the truth are unwilling to tell it...

pablodiablo

pablodiablo wrote: »

King Mob I take it that you believe the official story then? As there was no impartial and objective investigation into the days events we will never know the truth. The only people who know the truth are unwilling to tell it...

Yes I do believe the official story as none of the holes you are pointing to are true, and more importantly and on topic you cannot provide any alternative explanations for those holes.

Why do you reject the official story because there are holes in it, but then have no issue with the conspiracy explanation when there are even more holes?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I do believe the official story as none of the holes you are pointing to are true, and more importantly and on topic you cannot provide any alternative explanations for those holes.

Why do you reject the official story because there are holes in it, but then have no issue with the conspiracy explanation when there are even more holes?

Well the official story should be the truth and shouldnt have any holes in it at all

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Well the official story should be the truth and shouldnt have any holes in it at all

And I don't think there are, as I have explained.

pablodiablo does believe there are holes and rejects the official story because of them.
However he does not seem to have a problem with the conspiracy explanation despite it having even more holes.

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Well the official story should be the truth and shouldnt have any holes in it at all

These things either take a freak event like the downing of a CIA plane in Nicaragua to expose Iran-Contra or decades to get closer to the truth (or both) like NATO'S neo-fascist Gladio terrorists in Europe where the details are still coming out to this day http://www.todayszaman.com/news-310176-ergenekon-sought-to-reorganize-politics-over-past-several-years.html

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

And I don't think there are, as I have explained.

pablodiablo does believe there are holes and rejects the official story because of them.
However he does not seem to have a problem with the conspiracy explanation despite it having even more holes.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

are you privy to information that the 911 commission did not have because they seem to think there are holes in it ?

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These things either take a freak event like the downing of a CIA plane in Nicaragua to expose Iran-Contra or decades to get closer to the truth (or both) like NATO'S neo-fascist Gladio terrorists in Europe where the details are still coming out to this day http://www.todayszaman.com/news-310176-ergenekon-sought-to-reorganize-politics-over-past-several-years.html

Or perhaps it will just take people facing up to the FACT that governments are capable of LIES and MURDER and are doing so on a daily basis around the world

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

are you privy to information that the 911 commission did not have because they seem to think there are holes in it ?

I'm not sure what the point you are making here is.
Did this Republican governor conclude that the WTC was destroyed be a controlled demolition or something similar? Or was he referring to the general ass covering and bureaucracy that always happens in these investigations?

Further, on topic, how does this gel with the conspiracy theory?
Why is this government official blowing the whole operation? Why couldn't he have been bought off? Why couldn't he have replaced by someone who could have been bought off? Why couldn't they not just falsify all of the evidence and such to fool the investigation?

And then which are you saying is not true? What Norad said happened or what the commission said happened? Or are they both not true?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point you are making here is.

Simply if the 911commission report is part of the official narrative then the there are holes in it
You said there were none

pablodiablo

Well King Mob there are many reasons for so many conspiracy theories about 911

1. the official story doesn't add up
2. there are people out there with questions that have never been properly answered
3. possibly the most corrupt administration ever just happened to be in office

i'm sure other people have even more reasons. That is why conspiracy theories are theories cause we the people have been denied the truth. You said we should just make stuff up and just believe what the conspiracy theorists say- yet you believe the official story? The chairs of both the 911 commission and the official congressional inquiry into 911 said the investigation had been compromised by government interference so where does that leave the official story? If the government had nothing to fear from the investigation why did they interfere with it?

Hoop66

pablodiablo wrote: »

1. the official story doesn't add up
2. there are people out there with questions that have never been properly answered
3. possibly the most corrupt administration ever just happened to be in office

1. The 'official" story, while it may not add up, as you put it, is so much more likely to be the real explanation than the myriad of competing alternatives.

2. This is irrelevant

3. Yes. So what is more likely: they engineered a conspiracy (the purpose of which is unclear) which would have had to involve thousands of people, none of whom have come forward to reveal their part in it, or that they realised that they were caught out despite all their so-called preparedness and engaged in a huge arse-covering to maintain their credibility?

I will admit, my first thoughts on seeing the terrible carnage on that day, and afterwards, were: "this has to be some kind of inside job". That, I think, is the natural human response to an event of such magnitude.

Since then I have read and watched a lot of evidence for and against the "official" explanation. My take from all of that is that, yes, there are some inconsistencies in reporting arond what went on, but there isn't enough evidence, IMO, to link all of those separate inconsistencies so that they provide a significant weight of evidence. The "questions" that are often used are too widespread, a misreporting here, a theory there. They do not gel.

Those whose opinions differ ask these questions; often, I think, without considering how they relate to one another.

Now, to collect my paycheck from the NWO. * rubs hands *

pablodiablo

Hoop66 I respect you outlook on the events of the day everybody is entitled to their opinion it's just for me there are big questions that have never been properly dealt with. I know people will say to me well what do you think happened and all I can do is put forward a theory on what I think happened. I wont have any hard evidence on my theory cause it's just that a theory.

What I do have an issue with is the official story. When so many members of the Commision have publicly voiced they're frustration at government interference then alarm bells should be ringing. If let's say there was a huge terrorist attack on Ireland in the morning would you be happy if it took 441 days for the government to investigate it? Then when the investigation happened it was a sham? If as you say they were caught un-prepared on the day in question how come people in key positions were given promotions instead of being reprimanded (Gen. Myers and Gen. Eberhart) in fact no senior figures in the CIA FBI or NSA have ever been held accountable for they're sloppy work.

Hoop66

pablodiablo wrote: »

If as you say they were caught un-prepared on the day in question how come people in key positions were given promotions instead of being reprimanded (Gen. Myers and Gen. Eberhart) in fact no senior figures in the CIA FBI or NSA have ever been held accountable for they're sloppy work.

This is probably the least surprising outcome of all. A corrupt and self-serving government fails to call to account senior members for their incompetence? Standard practice isn't it?

What I would like to see, from someone such as yourself who distrusts the official explanation, is a specific theory as to what happened. Who did what, and how these things were accomplished.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that, either through incompetence or design, those who should have been protecting the US from such an attack allowed it to happen. But I draw the line at it actually being planned and executed by US personnel.

Like the old saying goes "conspiracy, or cock-up?"

pablodiablo

I outlined a few possibilities earlier in one of my posts but as I say these are only possibilities. Until there is an impartial and proper investigation into what exactly happened we can only speculate as to what really happened. Unfortunately I can never see the day where the truth will be told. I think if any person was to take a fair and objective look at the official story of the events that day they would come up with a whole host of questions that would be rather difficult to answer.

Jonny7

Again, can we try to keep this thread about alternative theories on 911?

Any airline crash throws up discrepencies, unexplained issues, people protecting their jobs, etc - that in itself does not mean there is some alternative conspiracy theory.

No hole-picking, just decent theories please with their own evidence.

pablodiablo

just a question jonny do you believe the official story?

enno99

Hoop66 wrote: »

which would have had to involve thousands of people, none of whom have come forward to reveal their part in it,

Pentagon reopening probe into employees allegedly tied to child porn

The Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service will review 264 cases, according to spokesman Gary Comerford. The department had stopped the reviews because of a lack of resources, he said'

Among the employees identified in a series of reports released by the department were some listed as having security clearances at the top secret level or higher. They worked for groups within the department such as the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, two of the country's top intelligence agencies.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/15/pentagon.child.porn/index.html?_s=PM:CRIME

well here are at least 264 mouths that would never utter a word even if you flew a plane in to their grandmothers house

Maybe that will answer the question of why did nobody say anything

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Simply if the 911commission report is part of the official narrative then the there are holes in it
You said there were none

Which is why I then asked you whether or not you agreed with the conclusions of the commission report.
They were told lies, but they were still able to get to the truth of the matter.

pablodiablo wrote: »

Well King Mob there are many reasons for so many conspiracy theories about 911

1. the official story doesn't add up

2. there are people out there with questions that have never been properly answered

And all of the plot holes and questions often are answered many times over some people just ignore the answers.
And as jonny keeps pointing out, no one is able to provide any alternative explanation.

pablodiablo wrote: »

i'm sure other people have even more reasons. That is why conspiracy theories are theories cause we the people have been denied the truth. You said we should just make stuff up and just believe what the conspiracy theorists say- yet you believe the official story?

But that's what you seem to be doing. You've concluded that it was an inside job even though that theory is vague, nonsensical and full of far more holes than you can point out about the official story. And then when asked about this holes, you cannot provide any answers.

Leaving aside the fact that most of your problems with the official story have been addressed years ago and are all basis on misinformed opinion, why they should any buy into the conspiracy when it is much much worse than what you believe the official story to be?

pablodiablo wrote: »

The chairs of both the 911 commission and the official congressional inquiry into 911 said the investigation had been compromised by government interference so where does that leave the official story? If the government had nothing to fear from the investigation why did they interfere with it?

Again, the commission were told lies, but that did not stop them from getting to the facts. If this wasn't the case, how were they able to tell that they were being lied to?
And again, as I said, people did have reason to lie and interfere. It's what people in "the most corrupt government ever" would do to cover their asses when thy **** up and want to avoid blame.

pablodiablo

So King Mob if the official story is what we are left with do you think that 19 middle eastern men armed with box-cutters and improvised knives brought down a multi-billion dollar defense system taking instruction from a bearded man in a cave somewhere? It really is the stuff of Hollywood...

Sixtus

pablodiablo wrote: »

Then you have Bush sitting in a classroom reading a book when it was fairly obvious the country was under attack and there was no attempt made to secure the President!

Sigh. They couldn't just bundle bush into a car, his route to the airport needed to be secured. And there was no evidence that Bush was in immediate danger.

There are a whole host of things that just don't add up about that day and the aftermath. The pilots were regarded as average to poor by there flight instructors but yet in the case of the Pentagon the pilot managed to fly a plane of that size and at speed keep it about 50feet off the ground and hit its target....

The pilot was more than capable of the act of crashing a plane.

from the time the first plane hit to when all four planes were accounted for NORAD had ample time to scramble fighter jets in fact if contact is lost with a plane by air traffic control it is standard operating procedure for NORAD to scramble jets.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

I've already posted this once before on this thread. You can listen to the actual NORAD tapes. NORAD don't keep alert fighters on stand by as if it was the battle of Britain. At least they didn't pre 9/11.

Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 jets were scrambled 67 times...but not on sept 11...

Jets were scrambled on 9/11

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Intercept_time
Those were intercepts of planes outside of US airspace about to enter.

I guess a lot of people just want to ignore a lot of the evidence. It's just easier to believe what we are told and not to ask the hard questions but the very fact that the administration in question has a proven track record of lying should be taken into account also when looking at the evidence.

Okay. Please provide the evidence you have to support your claim that 9/11 was a inside job

pablodiablo

pablodiablo wrote: »

So King Mob if the official story is what we are left with do you think that 19 middle eastern men armed with box-cutters and improvised knives brought down a multi-billion dollar defense system taking instruction from a bearded man in a cave somewhere? It really is the stuff of Hollywood...

No, as they didn't bring down anything but buildings. They just managed to slip though the cracks of slow, out dated, bureaucratic and incompetent defense system.

The alternative you seem to want to suggest is a conspiracy of millions of people who organised a ridiculously and spectacularly complex attack which involved ordering jets to fire on the pentagon and secret demolition teams managing to wire up entire skyscrapers. But then on the same ticket were too stupid to do it without glaring plot holes.

Could you please go back and address the points I made?

Jonny7

pablodiablo wrote: »

just a question jonny do you believe the official story?

Yup

I watched it live on television, which I didn't switch off for about 8 days. No one was "told" what happened, it was all pieced together over those days, by everyone, we all saw the same footage, an ex colleague of mine was directly involved and was lucky to survive.

Later I started watching documentaries, including "Loose change" and several others, I thought (at the time) that the 911 commission report was a white wash, and for awhile I believed a missile hit the Pentagon. Again, nothing too deep.

However that was during my own period of very heavy skepticism and over-cynicism toward the Bush gov, etc.

Presently there doesn't seem to be any alternative theory that has any weight to it.

I thought this would be very high priority.

pablodiablo

Sixtus I think you will find that the failure of the secret service to remove the president to a secure location (even the relative safety of the presidential limousine) instantly is very alarming. These are the men that are supposed to put they're bodies on the line for his very life yet for approx. 29 mins after the 2nd tower was hit he remained in the public eye? This leads me to two assumptions either the secret service acted incompetently (which doesn't wash with me) or they somehow knew that he wasn't in danger.

In regards to your comment that the pilot was more then capable of crashing the plane I think you will find many pilots (both military and commercial) would strongly disagree with you. These hijackers trained in a Cessna 172 and as I said earlier were best described as average to poor by they're instructors. Yet they seemed to be right at home in the cockpits of commercial jetliners? Numerous experienced pilots are of the opinion that it would take a very skilled pilot to even hit the towers not to mention the supposed maneuver at the pentagon.

The NORAD tapes make for interesting reading. It appears they finally got they're story straight after years of changing it. It's hard to believe the almost comedic communication between NORAD and the air traffic controllers. An interesting character worth reading up on is Gen.Eberhart the NORAD Commander it's hard to imagine he actually got a promotion after all this.

When I mention that a lot of people want to ignore the evidence I meant this in relation to the evidence of the official story. Anomalies such as how could television reports claim WTC7 had fallen half an hour before it did? In fact the very collapse of WTC7 is highly suspicious how could 2 planes bring down 3 buildings? Has the removal of evidence from the scene ever been properly addressed? Has anyone ever seen footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon? It has cctv cameras covering every approach. There should be as much footage of this attack as there is of the towers.

King Mob going on the nature of your previous posts i'm presuming you believe the official story? In my opinion the official story is just a theory like all the other theories out there. In fact the very people who gave us this official story have the following to say.

911 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton " I don't believe for a minute we got everything right" that the Commission was set up to fail,that people should keep asking questons about 911,and that the 911 debate should continue.

911 Commissioner Timothy Roemer "We were extremely frustrated at the false statements we were getting"

911 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned saying "It is a national scandal". "This investigation is now compromised" " One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 911 issue is so important to America. But this White house wants to cover it up".

911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said " There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version...We didn't have access".

Senior Counsel to the Commission John Farmer had this to say "At some level of our government ,at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". "The story of 911 itself,to put it mildly was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened".

The very men behind the official story don't even believe it....

pablodiablo

pablodiablo wrote: »

King Mob going on the nature of your previous posts i'm presuming you believe the official story?

I have already stated this clearly and concisely.

pablodiablo wrote: »

In my opinion the official story is just a theory like all the other theories out there. In fact the very people who gave us this official story have the following to say.

But all of these quotes are taken out of context.

pablodiablo wrote: »

Senior Counsel to the Commission John Farmer had this to say "At some level of our government ,at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". "The story of 911 itself,to put it mildly was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened".

The very men behind the official story don't even believe it....

John Farmer believes the Commission report:

John Farmer- Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

So again, the point I am making is that the conspiracy explanation for this hole (or any other "holes" in the official story) does not make any sense.
Why do you think these people are calling into question the offical story? Why are they not in on it?

What about the conclusions they make in the commission report that still state that it was not an inside job and do not agree with any of the conspiracy explanations you are suggesting? Are these also lies?

If you don't know the answers to these questions, say so as that is the point I am making.

Jonny7

This thread is for alternative theories as to what happened on 911

Latchy

I don't know anything except what everybody else knows but on the question of conspiracy's , I don't believe the USA government would conspire to murder 3000+ of it citizens but you do have to question their home security back then and how easy it was for Al Qaeda to carry it out proving that fortress America ,with all it's millions spent on CIA/FBI agencies , wasn't as secure and sophisticated as it had led the world to believe it was .

Brown Bomber

Latchy wrote: »

I don't know anything except what everybody else knows but on the question of conspiracy's , I don't believe the USA government would conspire to murder 3000+ of it citizens but you do have to question their home security back then and how easy it was for Al Qaeda to carry it out proving that fortress America ,with all it's millions spent on CIA/FBI agencies , wasn't as secure and sophisticated as it had led the world to believe it was .

Why not? Assuming they wouldn't get caught . They've trained death squads the world over for murder. Unless they value human life with a US passport over human life without one for some reason.

Latchy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why not? Assuming they wouldn't get caught . They've trained death squads the world over for murder. Unless they value human life with a US passport over human life without one for some reason.

It's possible ,they have total control of everything and the question of secret society's pulling the real strings of US government has been around for decades but if they have done it , would they have wanted to be humiliated on such a scale so as to show the world ( the illusion ) of how weak America really was ? I for one found it very strange that as the Twin towers were falling down Bin Laden's family were flying out of country .

pablodiablo

In my own opinion KingMob I believe that the commission were always going to produce a report that wouldn't implicate the government regardless of what they uncovered in they're investigation. There was never a chance that the Commission was going to issue a report that suggested a government cover-up or involvement in the attacks. I believe that the government got the report they wanted.

pablodiablo

pablodiablo wrote: »

In my own opinion KingMob I believe that the commission were always going to produce a report that wouldn't implicate the government regardless of what they uncovered in they're investigation. There was never a chance that the Commission was going to issue a report that suggested a government cover-up or involvement in the attacks. I believe that the government got the report they wanted.

But this just raises even more holes in addition to the ones you already have not answered.
If the commission were in on it, why did they speak out?
Why didn't the commission just say that all of the stuff they were told was the truth?
Or why couldn't they have been feed faked evidence?
Why did they come up with different lies to cover up the conspiracy if they weren't in the conspiracy?
Why have a commission at all?

All of these questions you are not able to answer are showing Jonny's point. Just poking holes in the official story does not provide you with an alternative explanation. And the explanation you want people to believe is nonsensical and full of even more holes.

So why do you not have any issues about the holes in the conspiracy theory?
Do all of the questions that you've been unable to answer not make it as bad of the official story?