Was 9/11 Engineered Or Allowed By The US?

I've stayed away from this as I thought trying to get to the bottom of it would be futile. It is a good few years later now so I reckon if there is some solid evidence for a cover-up then some people must know by now. Can anyone here provide evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

(You can't prove that it wasn't as you can't prove a negative)

To begin with I thought it was hilarious that people were suggesting it was by Americans on Americans... but since then I've become unsure. Anyway I'm not interested in people's opinions as that wont get anyone anywhere. I am interested in verifiable facts. Thanks if anyone has any good input.

You have got to be kidding. Like is not 4,000,000 other threads on THIS EXACT SAME TOPIC. WOW!

Originally posted by PeruvianNT
You have got to be kidding. Like is not 4,000,000 other threads on THIS EXACT SAME TOPIC. WOW!

Yeah I know. To be honest I've never bothered reading much of it as I reckon its pointless. I don't mind if noone adds anything to this thread if noone has evidence. I'd rather that than endless bickering.

Forgive me if I am off target in my assumption.

Many people who are, like myself, on the fence still about the extent of government involvement/coverup/misinformation (if any), seem to want people to make up their minds for them.

Read the information, get both sides of the argument and then make up your own mind.

In my opinion, the best site to 'take it all in' is this one.

Originally posted by spines
Forgive me if I am off target in my assumption.

Many people who are, like myself, on the fence still about the extent of government involvement/coverup/misinformation (if any), seem to want people to make up their minds for them.

Read the information, get both sides of the argument and then make up your own mind.

In my opinion, the best site to 'take it all in' is this one.

Oh wow that looks brilliant. Thanks.

EDIT: You are slightly off target with your assumption. With verifiable evidence there should be no need for making one's mind up.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Mister E]

The main reasons I have deduced that it was an inside job are:

The heavy effort to minimize the fact that without controlled demolition-like charges in place, the Towers and #7 would have fallen in steps - the weight would have met resistance, held a moment or two, collapsed a bit further, held, collapsed more, and likely, would have stopped somewhere before total demolition. That they had no resistance shows that charges were in place, and that they argue so adamantly against that idea is...of interest.

That the Towers were slated to be dismantled via a scaffolding (very expensive) by 2007, and CD was ruled out as too dangerous. Yet this is never discussed in the MSM.

That a motivation for an inside job most logically would be to frighten the public into giving up rights, and sure enough, less than 2 months after the event a 900+ page "Patriot" Act plopped onto the desks of Congress with a "Rush, rush, don't read, just sign!" attitude, that took away so much of what our founding documents gave us - a document that in no way was written, debated, revised, discussed and finalized in less than 2 months - more like 2-5 years!...meaning that it was already waiting in the wings. On top of that, it should never have been produced hidden from the public it affected.

That Cheney insisted "orders still stood" to do nothing as they tracked a plane coming in to the Pentagon.

That "rescue" efforts by the fire department were called off one the gold held in the Towers was collected and safely out of there.

That there was no reason #7 should have collapsed, yet it conveniently destroyed the evidence in Enron and other such cases...

I add this (and many other minor things) and must conclude that it was very much planned on the inside.

As the FSME for the War on Terror Forum, I support this thread. It was 9/11 that led to the proclaimation of the War on Terror itself. I'd like to see this thread examine not the attack on the WTC, but, what the WTC attack did to kick-off the she-bang.
In MY observances, I find that 9/11 had to be done to access certain areas of the world that were impeding progress to oil fields and routes to lay pipelines.
We also needed a new "Enemy" to continue the Military Industrial Complex megalopoly the Cold War fed. The Iron Curtain was coming down and you could see the beginnings of this in the 60's & 70's. It's also the time that Islamic extremism started to rear it's ugly head.
It was a target shift. Cold War to War on Terror.
Much like Sinn Fein being the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, the Taliban was the political wing of the Muhajadeen we armed and trained to fight our, then, enemy, The Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, a whole new chapter of the world began. Reagan knew (Iran-Contra). Hell, Carter knew (Israeli-Egypt-Syria) that the Middle East was going to be the next hotbed of activity for World Politics, World Arms sales and the tribal-ruled politics that were in place for thousands of years HAD to be changed to allow the capitalist market in.
So, we set up all the Arab states for chaos by injecting Israel into the Holy Land. We knew darn well that the Arab states would freak (Arms sales anyone?). We set Iran and Iraq at each other (making sure both were armed well) and kept pressure on N. African Countries such as Libya, Tunisia and Algeria and made sure they rattled swords against the West. It was a setup, literally years in the making.

Whew....

Now, let's face it, the Middle East has one commodity that was worth exploiting. Oil. We know that. So, to make the most of that commodity, they had to jack up the prices. During the 50's, car production was skyrocketing in America, drawing more and more interest in petroleum acquisition. The oil companies in America (Standard Oil-Rockefeller) bullied more and more into the region and since they were the real power-brokers in America, they knew they had to jack up the price to make the most of the commodity.
In the wake of 9/11, the prices have really jumped up, eh? The reason we had to actually go to Afghanistan and remove the Taliban was so an oil company could build a pipeline from the Tajikistan Area to the Arabian Sea ports on Pakistan's Coast. The Taliban wouldn't budge on their "No" and that is why we saw a whole slew of MSM news reports dealing with Al-Quaida and the Taliban. Focus on these areas and terrorist attacks increasing against western targets pretty much led America to eventually HAVE to deal with Islamic Extremism on their turf. We needed a match-strike, though, to kick the American people over the cliff (emotionally/Patriotically) and 9/11 was that kick. We leveled the Government of Afghanistan and made our own. One that will allow America to do anything it wanted to.

But, there was another route that could be exploited as well.

I didn't mention a lot of our recent history here. I didn't tie in the Gulf War One (Ops. Desert Shield/Storm) that good ole Bushies dad executed. I didn't mention the whole Serbian conflict and Clinton's contribution to the path. Nor, did I mention his, quite handy, miss on OBL either (Cruise Missile Strikes). He didn't actually miss. He made it look like he was doing something and I don't think he actually had any intention of killing OBL, IMO.

So, where I am at now, is, I'm just tired of typing. I'll let you all ponder what is, ultimately, my observances.
You can dispute anything I said, of course, but, please do it in an honest, polite manner.

Thanks for asking,
Cuhail

Sorry for being so ignorant about a lot of this but what is the official reason for tower #7s collapse? Ive seen footage of it collapsing and it does look like a controlled demolition to me... Am I right in believing that the official story is that it was on fire and then just randomly collapsed? It sounds a bit unlikely to me...

I've gone over some articles on the patriot act. Quite scary what the US government can legally do now to someone when there is suspicion of them being a 'terrorist.' These powers include imprisoning someone indefinately with no access to a lawyer and rights to torture dont they?

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Mister E]

reply to post by Cuhail


Do you think the hijackers knew they were part of a conspiracy or do u think they were genuine islamic nutters (because theres plenty of them in the world) who were unwittingly played like pawns in a massive game of chess?

There are countless sources of information and thorough analyses on the 9/11 conspiracy. If you're too lazy to research it yourself, then you're not worth anybody's time here. I'm not being a d*ck, I'm just being blunt.

Originally posted by Sroek
There are countless sources of information and thorough analyses on the 9/11 conspiracy. If you're too lazy to research it yourself, then you're not worth anybody's time here. I'm not being a d*ck, I'm just being blunt.

I'm not too lazy to research it myself. I've just put it off for a few years as I figured that sufficient evidence for a cover-up would take time to surface. I've read bits and pieces but never looked into the subject studiously. I've starred your comment.

reply to post by Mister E


Well, that's a good question. I have an answer, you decide if it's good or not.
The highjackers were just that. Hijackers. They did what they trained to do and that is hijack airliners and crash them into the WTC, etc.
I'd even go so far as to say they took what was fed to them and ran with it. They weren't rounded up before they could attack, like so many other terror cells just like them. They were successful.
Look into the their lives as they prepared this attack. Look into the backgrounds of the hijackers. You'll see the pre-made paths they followed to their ultimate destination.
They were set upon that path and it was cleared to let them advance un-impeded.

They were pawns.

Cuhail

reply to post by Mister E


Here's my advice. Forget anything anyone tells you, especially on web sites that claim to have evidence.

Learn and understand Newtons 3 laws of physics, and then learn how to apply those laws to the results of the collapses of the 3 buildings, and the attack on the pentagoon.

Then make up your own mind based on what you find. You won't find direct evidence for an inside job, but you will find that it didn't happen like we've been told. Circumstantial evidence can convict you. In fact almost all murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or non-
existence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source (PDF)

Direct evidence, as constantly requested by debunkers, is not necessary.

reply to post by ANOK


Brilliant.

Originally posted by ANOK
Direct evidence, as constantly requested by debunkers, is not necessary.

Or should it be said that direct evidence, as constantly requested by debunkers, is not possible...in this situation.

Originally posted by Cuhail
reply to post by Mister E

 

Well, that's a good question. I have an answer, you decide if it's good or not.
The highjackers were just that. Hijackers. They did what they trained to do and that is hijack airliners and crash them into the WTC, etc.

And I suspect that the planes were landed somewhere between the airport and NYC (that being the reason why they didn't go to a closer airport and hijack planes from there) - there was likely a secret military base en route. Either other planes took off, or, as much evidence for CGI on the parts of the MSM do exist, nothing took off.

Some passengers were told they would be released if they made calls talking of terrorists... But they never keep their promises, I'll tell you what.

I'd even go so far as to say they took what was fed to them and ran with it.

Or... They were CIA, or they didn't exist really, or they were not the only ones involved on the planes and soon after the "hijackings," they were rounded up and the pilot was replaced with another who took the plane down to the military base.

They weren't rounded up before they could attack, like so many other terror cells just like them. They were successful.

Or not, really. Maybe they merely served their purpose as scapegoats, but I cannot see the govt going to all the rest of the effort and then trust that 19-20 rabid arabs would successfully hit the targets on the first try. It seems it is actually quite difficult to do, even if one is experienced, after all.

So I am certain they left nothing to chance.

Look into the their lives as they prepared this attack. Look into the backgrounds of the hijackers. You'll see the pre-made paths they followed to their ultimate destination.

If they can give people whole new identities, can we be certain that the "lives" of these guys were real? Whose word are we taking on this information? Maybe they were real, and the plane having others involved to land the plane and then make SURE something hit (like explosives and CGI planes...). But just because there is a story for each of them doesn't necessarily mean they did exist, given the capabilities of "creating" people on this earth.

They were set upon that path and it was cleared to let them advance un-impeded.

At least to some point...if they did exist.

They were pawns.

Whether they were created or real, this is absolutely a true statement. [smile]

[edit on 10/13/2008 by Amaterasu]

reply to post by Mister E


the premise for this thread is in my opinion ridiculous..

however, first I would say to take a day or so and read through the larger conspiracy sites.. and after that read the debunking sites.. get the different points of view and then start asking for help..

first thing I did was google "Habeas Corpus" to find the truth on that matter..
you will get absolutely nowhere assuming anything on this subject..
further more it is an insult to those who do the research..

In a major rebuke to the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies — the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus — the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court — despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”

www.salon.com...

deny ignorance!