9/11

[TigerForce]

Just two things.

Firstly its not unsolved because no trial has taken place, just untested. The one bad thing about any suicide attack (or even lone gun man who offs himself) is that you have no-one to charge at the end of it because the main people are dead. You can do your coronial inquiry (or commission as they did with 9/11), but I agree its not the same.

Secondly, the last sentence is where we all need to be careful. I have no love for George W, and will be very happy to see him carted off to Crawford Texas in January. However we need to make sure that bias doesn't colour our perceptions. Just because the guy exploited the situation doesn't mean he created it.

Good words 74. I totally agree.

I'm not and never have been a biased person. In fact, I loathe them ala Fat Arse McGuire.

My assumption throughout the whole 7 years has been against Bush / US govt mainly because of evidence that I judged myself.

Overall, some people just get fed up with listening to certain events because they make up their mind quickly and becomes instilled in them. I think it's best to keep an 'open' mind and continue to judge evidence both ways.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm not and never have been a biased person.

That seems like a rather biased opinion .

 

[Tiger74]

The only part about that day that gives some pause is the way building 7 falls.

It did burn for 12 hours though so willing to accept the official position.Rubbish.There is just the impression of plenty of people who claim it is a missle.

That reminds me of one of the 9/11 quirks I heard. Some were asking why so much steel was used in the buildings (which when it melted caused the buildings to collapse), and it turns out at in NYC most the concrete supply is run by what is effectively a mob cartel. As such they try to minimize concrete use as much as possible from a cost perspective.

Damn, Tony Sorprano is in on this too

 

[Tigers of Old]

The only part about that day that gives some pause is the way building 7 falls.

Don't think it's odd that only one video of this was released of the incident despite the Pentagon being the most impregnable and surveyed building on the earth?
No doubt the US gov had this place under spy satellite if nothing else that they could have released data of to confirm this crash, but all we've got to go by is one very sketchy video that confirms nothing but the impact? ???

Rubbish.There is just the impression of plenty of people who claim it is a missle.

If you say so.
Fair point about the strewn plane wreckage over DC but many witnesses suggest there was little at the point of supposed impact either.
Seems very strange that a passenger jet didn't explode everywhere at the site.
Who's to say the plane wasn't shot down outside DC but I take your point, it's unlikely.

It was all a little too clean & controlled to me to not ask questions.
For obvious reasons the site was shut down very quickly from public view or access.
I doubt we'll ever know exactly what occurred re that flight.

 

[TigerForce]

That seems like a rather biased opinion .

Don't know how Pink Panther.

Anybody got thoughts on Silverstein's insurance claim on the WTC only months after buying it?

 

[evo]

Don't think it's odd that only one video of this was released of the incident despite the Pentagon being the most impregnable and surveyed building on the earth?

Yeah maybe. But then again the US government in particular has a long history of not releasing anymore information than they have to.With a day like that with so many things going on.Theres going to be anomolies.

Questions about everyday life arise all the time from the most mundane occurances.

Q:"Why didn't you take the paper into the loo for this mornings *smile*.What are you trying to cover?"

A:Um,I forgot

You never forget! Conspiracy!

Conspiratory theorists prey upon doubt.

In the end I reckon it's best to just go with the simplest explanation that seems to add up.Thats what scientists do when apply the rule of Parsimony;Ockams Razor.

In this case the offical explanation is the one that seems most likely right (to me anyway).

 

[Tiger74]

Don't know how Pink Panther.

Anybody got thoughts on Silverstein's insurance claim on the WTC only months after buying it?

If he owned the building, and he had valid insurance, he is entitled to a claim. I would be doing the same if a 747 crashed into by 3 bedroom unit.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If he owned the building, and he had valid insurance, he is entitled to a claim. I would be doing the same if a 747 crashed into by 3 bedroom unit.

The destruction of T74s evil empire! Rise Jihadists!

 

[Liverpool]

Don't think it's odd that only one video of this was released of the incident despite the Pentagon being the most impregnable and surveyed building on the earth?
No doubt the US gov had this place under spy satellite if nothing else that they could have released data of to confirm this crash, but all we've got to go by is one very sketchy video that confirms nothing but the impact? ???

If you say so.
Fair point about the strewn plane wreckage over DC but many witnesses suggest there was little at the point of supposed impact either.
Seems very strange that a passenger jet didn't explode everywhere at the site.
Who's to say the plane wasn't shot down outside DC but I take your point, it's unlikely.

It was all a little too clean & controlled to me to not ask questions.
For obvious reasons the site was shut down very quickly from public view or access.
I doubt we'll ever know exactly what occurred re that flight.

I know people don't like links...but here are a few photos of the Pentagon, including the 'infamous' small hole:

Now people say that this hole is too small for a plane and this is where the conspiracy theories abound, but apparently this hole was made by the landing gear NOT the plane itself.

Look, this is an interesting site with photos of around the Pentagon after the crash....heck, there are bits of the plane strewn across the grass.
So much for the plane being blown up somewhere else.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#bigplane

Even people whoa rrived at the site said there were body parts, bits of plane, etc.

I think people on here are looking too deep into something that has a simple reason behind it.

 

[Tigers of Old]

In this case the offical explanation is the one that seems most likely right (to me anyway).

I do too.
I can't for one second believe that the US government would contemplate committing such atrocities on their own people.
I mean people like George W Bush have to sleep straight at night. Whilst no doubt some have engenders I do not believe that they are the devil incarnate.

I only suggest the cover up over the last few posts because the gov may have been concerned about the fallout in trying to protect others on the ground by shooting down that kamakaze bound plane, not because they wished harm on them.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I know people don't like links...but here are a few photos of the Pentagon, including the 'infamous' small hole:

Now people say that this hole is too small for a plane and this is where the conspiracy theories abound, but apparently this hole was made by the landing gear NOT the plane itself.

Got any pictures of the big hole? ;D

 

[TigerForce]

If he owned the building, and he had valid insurance, he is entitled to a claim. I would be doing the same if a 747 crashed into by 3 bedroom unit.

Strange coincidence then.

Oh well, we could be here for years.......

 

[Tiger74]

Strange coincidence then.

How so (not trying to be a smart ass - don't know what the underlying issue is)?

 

[AngryAnt]

Taken from the Woo Denial thread to avoid further thread hijack:

Umm I know the WTC was bombed in 1993........what's it got to do with 9/11??.

I'm only using the Oklahoma building as an example of office buildings being bombed. I'm not saying a truck bomb should've been used.

Learn your reading son.

TF it's clear to me at least that you had forgotten about the WTC 1993 bombings or else never knew about them. Why ask such a ridiculous question "why didn't they just bomb the WTC" and make no mention of the 1993 bombing otherwise? Your move.

Bali and London were also bombings on a much smaller scale. Of course you knew that as well despite the stupidity of your question? Because blowing up a nightclub or blowing up train carraiges and London buses is so like blowing up a set of buildings like the WTC, right? You are not suggesting a truck bomb should be used - okay, what sort of bomb? Delivered how? Carrier pigeon maybe? Hang glider? New York taxi cab? DHL?

Even the Oklahoma bombing was on a building on a much much smaller scale than the WTC, and guess what, the building still stood after the bombing.

Well after 8 years, I'm sure they can try again with better technology. Who's stopping them ?

Apart from the obvious point that THEIR PLAN WORKED, THEY ARE ALL DEAD AND THE WTC IS GONE, lots of people are trying to stop "them" all the time - some terrorist plots are foiled, some aren't. That's the reality of the world we live in now. Witness Mumbai. Or was that some Indian government conspiracy as well? Makes about as much sense as ridiculous assertions that the US Govt. was behind 9/11 because "real terrorists would just use bombs".

So your argument is that "Real terrorists would just bomb the WTC. Despite all the evidence that it was terrorists flying planes into the buildings - despite the thousands of people who died, the thousands of eye witnesses in New York and elsewhere, despite the REAL TIME TV footage that we all saw on the 11th September 2001 - it must be all faked or a huge conspiracy because real terrorists would have just bombed the place" is surely the most asinine of all the pro-conspiracy arguments I have ever read.

 

[TigerForce]

Taken from the Woo Denial thread to avoid further thread hijack:

TF it's clear to me at least that you had forgotten about the WTC 1993 bombings or else never knew about them. Why ask such a ridiculous question "why didn't they just bomb the WTC" and make no mention of the 1993 bombing otherwise? Your move.

Bali and London were also bombings on a much smaller scale. Of course you knew that as well despite the stupidity of your question? Because blowing up a nightclub or blowing up train carraiges and London buses is so like blowing up a set of buildings like the WTC, right? You are not suggesting a truck bomb should be used - okay, what sort of bomb? Delivered how? Carrier pigeon maybe? Hang glider? New York taxi cab? DHL?

Even the Oklahoma bombing was on a building on a much much smaller scale than the WTC, and guess what, the building still stood after the bombing.


Apart from the obvious point that THEIR PLAN WORKED, THEY ARE ALL DEAD AND THE WTC IS GONE, lots of people are trying to stop "them" all the time - some terrorist plots are foiled, some aren't. That's the reality of the world we live in now. Witness Mumbai. Or was that some Indian government conspiracy as well? Makes about as much sense as ridiculous assertions that the US Govt. was behind 9/11 because "real terrorists would just use bombs".

So your argument is that "Real terrorists would just bomb the WTC. Despite all the evidence that it was terrorists flying planes into the buildings - despite the thousands of people who died, the thousands of eye witnesses in New York and elsewhere, despite the REAL TIME TV footage that we all saw on the 11th September 2001 - it must be all faked or a huge conspiracy because real terrorists would have just bombed the place" is surely the most asinine of all the pro-conspiracy arguments I have ever read.

I'll say it again!

Instead of flying a plane into a building, why not set up bombs inside the WTC building? Can you understand that now?

I know other bombings were smaller, so I just used 'just like the Oklahoma building in 1995' (I posted 1993 instead of 1995 by error) as just an example no matter what type of bomb is used. The Oklahoma building was an example because it's AN OFFICE BUILDING just like WTC was when comparing to other bombings (e.g. Bali). Don't get so technical. WTC bombing in 1993 was from a car bomb so I'm not saying to use a car bomb again.

The WTC had a 'pancake collapse' so just a few bombs in the bottom floors would've been enough.

Why the hell would terrorists come up with a huge effort in training themselves to be pilots, pass tight US security and bother to just fly into a building. It's absurd.

All you're saying is because the 1993 bombing of WTC didn't work, then maybe flying a plane into the building would be easier to organise.

 

[Tiger74]

I'll say it again!

Instead of flying a plane into a building, why not set up bombs inside the WTC building? Can you understand that now?

I know other bombings were smaller, so I just used 'just like the Oklahoma building in 1995' (I posted 1993 instead of 1995 by error) as just an example no matter what type of bomb is used. The Oklahoma building was an example because it's AN OFFICE BUILDING just like WTC was when comparing to other bombings (e.g. Bali). Don't get so technical. WTC bombing in 1993 was from a car bomb so I'm not saying to use a car bomb again.

The WTC had a 'pancake collapse' so just a few bombs in the bottom floors would've been enough.

Why the hell would terrorists come up with a huge effort in training themselves to be pilots, pass tight US security and bother to just fly into a building. It's absurd.

This is only a guess, but after the failures of security to prevent 1993, don't you think security would have been beefed up at the WTC to make smuggling explosives into multiple rooms on multiple floors virtually impossible? This is why the ram technique (be it car or plane) is great, because get enough velocity and enough explosive, its very hard to stop.

Look at Pakistan. After the car bombings they put in security measures to make it harder to get access to the front of the buildings, yet the most recent one succeeded in preventing the destruction of the hotel, yet still caused significant damage to the surrounds (and a bloody big crater).

 

[TigerForce]

This is only a guess, but after the failures of security to prevent 1993, don't you think security would have been beefed up at the WTC to make smuggling explosives into multiple rooms on multiple floors virtually impossible? This is why the ram technique (be it car or plane) is great, because get enough velocity and enough explosive, its very hard to stop.

Look at Pakistan. After the car bombings they put in security measures to make it harder to get access to the front of the buildings, yet the most recent one succeeded in preventing the destruction of the hotel, yet still caused significant damage to the surrounds (and a bloody big crater).

Well there wasn't much security for Oklahoma in 1995 was there.

Bombings to whatever effect continue happening (eg Mumbai) so I think that's what terrorists would rather go for when compared to training to be a pilot.

 

[Tiger74]

Well there wasn't much security for Oklahoma in 1995 was there.

Bombings to whatever effect continue happening (eg Mumbai) so I think that's what terrorists would rather go for when compared to training to be a pilot.

Different arrangements, and I don't have access to the details, but off memory the Oklahoma bomb was a heck of a lot more powerful than the WTC one.

Sadly terrorists learn from each other.

As for why not use a car again, lets repeat:

1) after the initial bombing security would have been increased extensively to stop a repeat of the original attack. As such, bringing in a delivery truck to the guts of the building and then detonating may not have been feasible.

2) for similar reasons, getting large volumes of explosives to multiple rooms on multiple floors could have triggered concerns with security risking the operation being blown

In terms of why a plane, here are my personal views. Firstly its not like mid east terrorists are unfamiliar with what's involved in hijacking a plane. It was a past time for most of the 70's and 80's. Security had increased to prevent hijacking, but the 9/11 guys got around this using the knives they took onboard.

Also a terrorist attack is designed to create terror. The reason 9/11 (IMO) worked so well was it combined two common elements, a plane hijacking and a building bombing. People get desensitized to attacks after time, so shock value is needed to get attention. Doing this got them attention that embassy bombings and the USS Cole failed to achieve.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Even people whoa rrived at the site said there were body parts, bits of plane, etc.

I think people on here are looking too deep into something that has a simple reason behind it.

I think this CNN report soon after the incident raises questions to some of your thoughts livers.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/Cnn%5B1%5D.Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf

Also where is the damage from the wings?

 

[Disco08]

I actually think the evidence is less clear in the case of AA77 than it is for some other factors of 9/11, such as the collapse of the twin towers and of WTC7. I think this video evidence is quite compelling though, whether it points to another object striking the Pentagon or simply that AA77 was allowed to strike the Pentagon despite plenty of opportunity to stop it. This commentary on those events is also interesting IMO.

Also, just to try and justify my reluctance to accept the official version of events, this page details some of the people with more access to information that any of us that doubt the commission findings.