9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

IvaBigWun · 05-09-2011 05:51PM #1

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 · 05-09-2011 05:51PM

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Wertz · 05-09-2011 05:52PM

Both.

storker · 05-09-2011 05:54PM

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

Stork

4leto · 05-09-2011 05:54PM

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

mikemac · 05-09-2011 05:55PM

We have a place on boards for the loons OP

Conspiracy Theories forum

Jaafa · 05-09-2011 05:55PM

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

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-09-2011 05:56PM

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

Seriously!

Chuck Stone · 05-09-2011 05:56PM

I think it didn't happen at all.

Ruu_Old · 05-09-2011 06:01PM

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

willmunny1990 · 05-09-2011 06:02PM

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

IvaBigWun · 05-09-2011 06:03PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:04PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:05PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:05PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:09PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:13PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:23PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:27PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:29PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:31PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:34PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:36PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:38PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:40PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:43PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:43PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:44PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:44PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:45PM

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 · 05-09-2011 06:46PM

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

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack? 424 votes

Comments