9/11 Inside Job?

[wasted]

I might have that wrong but I think they learned to fly in the UK. I mean not sure how good Afghanistan flight schools are. Same with Iraq nuclear program guy, trained up in switzerland.

I thought it was funny, they took the how to take off and fly parts and didn't bother with how to land.

[wasted]

i didnt even know about this one

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9625623/British-al-Qaeda-gang-from-Birmingham-planned-another-911-in-UK.html

The Florida flight school was smuggling coke as well as training terrorists.

[Dazey]

There's nothing worth adding, thousands of people die in horrific circumstances and a whole bunch of people have got nothing better to do that play Cluedo over their graves

Abu Hamza in the cockpit with the box cutter?

[Guest Len B'stard]

Y'know, being of muslim persuasion it's AMAZING to see the paranoia among our community, my Mums always like "don't talk to people about 9/11! Ever! Don't mention it, don't give your opinion, don't say anything about that stuff ever! They're taking lads that look like you off the street and locking em up, y'know? It's so weird, a part of me feels like i should apologise to every American i meet about it...and i ain't even done nothing! (honest, it weren't me!)

[wasted]

I get thanked by random Americans with helping them out with the iraq war. If you look at the hijackers, 4 or 5 were educated in the west the rest of them were skint living on a road built by Osama Bin Laden's dad near Mecca. Everyone else is free to go.

Edited April 25, 2013 by wasted

[ManetsBR]

Are you stupid? Where did I say there were no airplanes? Are you kidding me?

Probably the most common theory from the 9/11 conspiracy whackjobs is that the WTC wasn't hit by planes, but by US missiles.

Okay, so what's your angle? Was it government-hired kamikazes that piloted the planes? Or were the pilots legit but the hijackers were secret FBI agents? Were all the passengers in on it too? Please don't try to say none of the passengers died or some bullshit theory like that, I knew a couple people that were on one of the planes.

And while you're at it, do you think the government's "motive" was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq or was there some other sinister motivation? Of course if justifying a war was their motivation, they sure as hell didn't need to take down BOTH towers at a time when it would result in thousands of casualties. Why not take down just one tower? Why not do it late at night or on the weekend to keep casualties to a minimum? Wouldn't it have been "cleaner" with less witnesses and coverage if it had happened in darkness?

And BTW, why the hell would the government attack or blow up their own building? Tell me, why the hell would they crash a plane (or bomb, if that's what you think) into the Pentagon? And why have a 4th plane? Seriously, don't you think if there was just one target (WTC1 or WTC2 or the Pentagon or whatever) that would have been sufficient cause for them to invade Afghanistan?

There's a complete lack of logic on your end. I don't know a thing about you, if you were like 10 years old or younger when 9/11 happened then I can somewhat understand why you'd have these questions and doubts now. But if you're old enough to remember firsthand when it happened, it's incomprehensible that you still don't know all the facts nearly 12 years later. This stuff you're stirring has been talked about ad nauseum for more than a decade and proven false countless times, how is it possible you still have doubts?

There were planes on the WTC. Fact.

Thee were no planes on the Penthagon and on the farm, though. There's one video footage of the Penthagon airplane hit, it would be the ultimate evidence to shut up the conspiracy theorists... But the Gov. confiscated it as soon as they could. Have you seen the imagens? There NOT A SINGLE PIECE of an airplane. Not one. You're suggesting that everything melted down? That's impossible.

Even for the WTC, the engine heat leves were not high enough to have melted down the building iron bars, and certainly not turn every piece of concrete into dust in matter of seconds. There are hundreds of cases of buildings - average buildings, made by average professionals - who burned for weeks, in more floors and with a much more hot fire and didn't collapse. You're suggesting that the only case where that happened was on the WTC, a construction feat made by the best professionals in the world which was, actually, as said by one of the engineers: constructed to withstand a major airplane hit.

And why can some people believe Pearl Harbor was an Inside Job and 911 wasn't? Just because it's recent history? 911 has way more evidences.

Do you know how many times the NORAD failed on it's History? Four. All on the 911. Do you know why? Because there was a simulation of... a WTC airplane attack. Not a conspiracy theory, this is true. Thus, there were fake points on the radar, they didn't know the real airplanes were in fact, real. You can't think that every single person on the Gov. and every single Gov. agency knew - and agreed - with the attack.

On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day.

A lot of different people didn’t know whether or not the hijackings were “real-world or exercise.”

According to Richard Clarke, on the morning of 9/11 at around 9:28am, he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference “I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?” Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies it’s, “NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK (emphasis mine). WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR, A NORAD EXERCISE (emphasis mine), but Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert.” The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian, and in a footnote in the back of the book.

On 2/25/2005, then Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked (realplayer required) Donald Rumsfeld about the exercises that were taking place on 9/11, but did not get an answer on that day.

On 3/10/2005, Rep. McKinney asked Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers about the exercises again. The first question asked by Rep. McKinney was, “whether or not the activities of the 4 wargames going on on Sept. 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.” Gen. Myers responded with, “the answer to the question is, no, did not impair our response. In fact, Gen. Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission… I believe…I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond.” Then Rep. McKinney asked, “who was in charge of managing those wargames?,” and was cut off by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Gen. Myers never gave a name, but he did say, “North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible.” She was promised an answer in writing and as far as I know, never received it.

[...]

NORAD gave

with regards to their response on the day of 9/11.

Sen. Mark Dayton questioned 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton about NORAD’s false statements to the people and their Commission. He also spoke to Philip Zelikow, a panel of “experts,” and Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers about NORAD’s response that morning.

On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick will question Gen. Myers about NORAD’s mission. “In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job.” [...] “I would like to know, as the second question, is it your job, and if not whose job is it, to make current assessments of a threat, and decide whether you are positioned correctly to carry out a mission, which at least on paper NORAD had.” At the end of this exchange, Gen. Myers asks, “did I answer both questions?” Jamie Gorelick responds, “yes, and no, and my time has expired.” According to information collected by Dean Jackson, NORAD’s mission at the time, coincided with Jamie Gorelick’s understanding of it.

On 8/2/2006, the Washington Post reported that “the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public” and that “the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.” Later, it was reported that NORAD’s mistakes were due to “inadequate forensic capabilities” and “poor record-keeping.”

William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the DoD’s Inspector General’s office, said that “the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.” To my knowledge, that report has not been released as of this date.

On March 7th, 2009, it is reported that Frank Rich of the New York Times believed “that the Defense Department Inspector General’s office’s investigations over the years may have been cover-ups that were “carried out in response to “orders from above.” He said that any report “over the past five or six years during the war in Iraq” may be suspect, and that “there may be a much bigger story here.” His suspicions seem to have been confirmed in a report from Fox News’ Catherine Herridge that broke on October 7th, 2010. With regards to what is known as Able Danger, “it is made clear that “at least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department’s Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG’s report — or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11.”

Here are some excerpts from Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book, “Without Precedent.” “There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11-things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11-and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received”. These were puzzling and disturbing developments, and they account in part for some of the more bizarre and inaccurate conspiracy theories about 9/11.” [...] “Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out.” [...] “Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism-and thus the most conspiracy theorizing-was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001.” [...] “Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue.”

On 9/17/2001, NORAD gives a briefing to the White House. 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will say “it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that’s different than what actually happened on that day.”

[...]

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. ¹ In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. ²

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001.

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

• Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
• Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
• Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
• Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases from which to scramble planes. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Failures to Report

Comparing NORAD's timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal.

Failures to Scramble

No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles.

New York City

Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

Washington D.C.

No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only about 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Failures to Intercept

Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline.

Otis to the WTC

The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at:

(153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph

That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.

At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was:

153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph

That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

Langley to the Pentagon

The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at:

130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph

That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

Andrews to the Pentagon

Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.

Failures to Redeploy

Fighters that were in the air when the attack started were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived there too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

Long Island to Manhattan

Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit. 3

WTC to the Pentagon

By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in:

300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes

They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

I'm the one providing evidences to back up my opinion here. All the vast majority of you say is "if you think 911 is an inside job you're an idiot lalala"

Edited April 25, 2013 by ManetsBR

[ManetsBR]

THE TOP 40

REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story


THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?


GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?


HISTORY

38) "Al-CIA-da?"
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.


REASON NUMBER 41:
RELATED MOVEMENTS AND PARALLEL ISSUES

Ground Zero aftermath movements:
- Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (wtceo.org)
- "Radio Silence" (radiosilencefdny.com)
- Skyscraper Safety (www.skyscrapersafety.org).

Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (BlackBoxVoting.org)

Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)

Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, "The War at Home")

Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten - May 9, 2008!)

Whether you call it "Globalization" or "The New World Order" - An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.

GOING FORWARD ...

"But an inside job would involve thousands of people! How could they keep a secret?" Counter-arguments, red herrings, speculations and false information.

Selected essays, books and websites that make the case for 9/11 as inside job. (See Resources)

Demanding a real investigation of the September crimes - Not just a patriotic duty, but a matter of survival.

[ManetsBR]

Ran out of arguments? No surprised. At all.

[Dazey]

Ran out of arguments? No surprised. At all.

Manets what was the deal with WTC7?

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Are you stupid? Where did I say there were no airplanes? Are you kidding me?

Probably the most common theory from the 9/11 conspiracy whackjobs is that the WTC wasn't hit by planes, but by US missiles.

Okay, so what's your angle? Was it government-hired kamikazes that piloted the planes? Or were the pilots legit but the hijackers were secret FBI agents? Were all the passengers in on it too? Please don't try to say none of the passengers died or some bullshit theory like that, I knew a couple people that were on one of the planes.

And while you're at it, do you think the government's "motive" was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq or was there some other sinister motivation? Of course if justifying a war was their motivation, they sure as hell didn't need to take down BOTH towers at a time when it would result in thousands of casualties. Why not take down just one tower? Why not do it late at night or on the weekend to keep casualties to a minimum? Wouldn't it have been "cleaner" with less witnesses and coverage if it had happened in darkness?

And BTW, why the hell would the government attack or blow up their own building? Tell me, why the hell would they crash a plane (or bomb, if that's what you think) into the Pentagon? And why have a 4th plane? Seriously, don't you think if there was just one target (WTC1 or WTC2 or the Pentagon or whatever) that would have been sufficient cause for them to invade Afghanistan?

There's a complete lack of logic on your end. I don't know a thing about you, if you were like 10 years old or younger when 9/11 happened then I can somewhat understand why you'd have these questions and doubts now. But if you're old enough to remember firsthand when it happened, it's incomprehensible that you still don't know all the facts nearly 12 years later. This stuff you're stirring has been talked about ad nauseum for more than a decade and proven false countless times, how is it possible you still have doubts?

There were planes on the WTC. Fact.

Because there's a multitude of subjects about 9/11 that can be discussed, rather than throwing a bunch of different theories out there let's stick to one thing at a time. As I asked above, if you agree there were planes involved in the WTC then please explain to me your angle. Explain to me how the planes were used to bring down the towers, and which people (pilots, terrorists on the planes, passengers, air traffic controllers, etc) were involved in the "inside job". You mocked me for suggesting you might not think planes were involved, but you never answered my followup questions.

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Ran out of arguments? No surprised. At all.

WTF, you think we live on here? Some of us need sleep, have jobs and other responsibilities ya know!

Pick any one specific thing that you believe is "proof" of an inside job, and I'll shred it apart with facts and logic. Go ahead, pick anything. How about WTC7? Dazey wants you to pick that one.

[Rustycage]

Just for the record, the metallurgy facts of the 9/11 case aren't bogus. The heat needed to create molten steel can't be created by jet fuel. Sorry.

The world trade centers became the first high rise to be brought down by fire. It also became the longest burning high rise fire, at the bottom of which was molten steel for weeks.

Just keep giving away those rights. I'm moving to New Zealand in the next few years and will laugh from a distance.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Just for the record, the metallurgy facts of the 9/11 case aren't bogus. The heat needed to create molten steel can't be created by jet fuel. Sorry.

The world trade centers became the first high rise to be brought down by fire. It also became the longest burning high rise fire, at the bottom of which was molten steel for weeks.

Just keep giving away those rights. I'm moving to New Zealand in the next few years and will laugh from a distance.

Yup, the worlds gone crazy, time to start building those fallout shelters people *looks out the window, see's nothing, hears birds tweeting and a bicycle bell ringing* yup, the end is nigh

[Rustycage]

Yep, I'm moving because one shouldn't have to choose between health and debt and there's been bills passed to impede on our constitutional rights over the passed decade. Don't need a fallout shelter or whatever bitch shit you want to throw out there.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I know, i know, i'll be laughing the other side of my face in 10 years time when the entire worlds coming to an end, if ONLY i'd've listened to that person on that Guns n Roses forum. Oh well, the only way some people learn is by suffering from the results of their stupidity. Hows the Kurt Cobain case going by the way, didja crack it yet Lieutenant? Better get a move on before they take away so many rights that there won't be the information available on the internet for you conduct your tireless investigating.

Can i also take this time to thank you please and all those like you for your tireless efforts in defence of my rights and those of the human race, for ensuring with every injustice uncovered that the human race shall never never never be slaves, i can't tell you how grateful i am, God bless ya! (that won't start an argument about the existence of God now, will it? )

[Rustycage]

So anyways, this whole Boston thing kinda stinks but what leaves me skeptical is what was the motive supposed to be? The CISPA bill seems like a weak motive.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Rusty...i don't mean to get personal but are you regular? Or does it take you a while? Y'know, do you have to push? Does it usually take a few hairs with it?

Edited April 25, 2013 by sugaraylen

[ManetsBR]

Ran out of arguments? No surprised. At all.

Manets what was the deal with WTC7?

No plane ever hit that. Ever. Still, this is how it fell:

http://www.ae911truth.net/flash/wtc7ani2.swf

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction
3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance –
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
6. from the top European controlled demolition professional
7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

Read what's on the second page: http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/graphics/AEstreet_3-beam.pdf

There's a whole website dedicated to the WTC 7: http://www.wtc7.net/

Linguini, I'll elaborate more on your question later.

Edited April 25, 2013 by ManetsBR

[dalsh327]

So anyways, this whole Boston thing kinda stinks but what leaves me skeptical is what was the motive supposed to be? The CISPA bill seems like a weak motive.

The big question is what was the catalyst for the brothers to become hardcore fanatics? I'm sure the CIA want to drag the dad's ass back here.

Maybe it's like "At Close Range", where the dad got his sons into some heinous shit.

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Just for the record, the metallurgy facts of the 9/11 case aren't bogus. The heat needed to create molten steel can't be created by jet fuel. Sorry.

The world trade centers became the first high rise to be brought down by fire. It also became the longest burning high rise fire, at the bottom of which was molten steel for weeks.

Just keep giving away those rights. I'm moving to New Zealand in the next few years and will laugh from a distance.

It wasn't just the fire that brought them down, educate yourself.

36:30 directly address the fire part by the way.

And thank you for leaving the country.

[Rustycage]

Just for the record, the metallurgy facts of the 9/11 case aren't bogus. The heat needed to create molten steel can't be created by jet fuel. Sorry.

The world trade centers became the first high rise to be brought down by fire. It also became the longest burning high rise fire, at the bottom of which was molten steel for weeks.

Just keep giving away those rights. I'm moving to New Zealand in the next few years and will laugh from a distance.

It wasn't just the fire that brought them down, educate yourself.

36:30 directly address the fire part by the way.

And thank you for leaving the country.

"Not just the fire."

LOL

Yeah, and what brought down tower 7?

Sucker.

[Dazey]

Manets what was the deal with WTC7?

No plane ever hit that. Ever. Still, this is how it fell:

http://www.ae911truth.net/flash/wtc7ani2.swf

My understanding was that WTC was hit with falling debris from the collapsing north tower. There's pics of a massive hole in one side of it caused by that if I recall. Saw them somewhere a while ago.

[Rustycage]

Manets what was the deal with WTC7?

No plane ever hit that. Ever. Still, this is how it fell:

http://www.ae911truth.net/flash/wtc7ani2.swf

My understanding was that WTC was hit with falling debris from the collapsing north tower. There's pics of a massive hole in one side of it caused by that if I recall. Saw them somewhere a while ago.

Nope

[Dazey]

Just for the record, the metallurgy facts of the 9/11 case aren't bogus. The heat needed to create molten steel can't be created by jet fuel. Sorry.

Sorry buddy but I think you're mistaken there. Yes jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel but then who ever said that the steel in the towers melted?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Ran out of arguments? No surprised. At all.

Manets what was the deal with WTC7?

No plane ever hit that. Ever. Still, this is how it fell:

http://www.ae911truth.net/flash/wtc7ani2.swf

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction
3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance –
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
6. from the top European controlled demolition professional
7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

Read what's on the second page: http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/graphics/AEstreet_3-beam.pdf

There's a whole website dedicated to the WTC 7: http://www.wtc7.net/

Linguini, I'll elaborate more on your question later.

WTC7 was hit by the large perimeter columns of the tower collapse. The towers were more than 1,300 feet tall and WTC7 was only 400 feet away, do the math.

If you're truly this ignorant about 9/11, educate yourself http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm