who still believes 911 was an inside job?

Not even reading the thread.

Who still DOESN'T beleive this was an inside job would be a better question - gimme an effin break.

If Clinton, the pillar of respectability that he is said it, then it must be true!!!!

I believe 911 was an inside job, I'd happily be proved wrong, I hate the notion myself. But until someone addresses ALL of my concerns, I have to (I owe it to myself) doubt the OS.

My concerns:

40 Questions which make believing the OS Grotesque

All the best, Kiwi

Originally posted by The_Zomar
You're right. In 2001 the melting temperature of steel was 700 degrees below what it is today. Must have been some atmospheric thing.

this along with all the other impossibilities of that day are enough for me.

reply to post by rival


Thanks for the response, well written.

First, I say that some aspects of what you wrote --- anyting that is critical of the Bush administration, et al, I agree with wholeheartedly.

But, it is the incredibly WIDE leap that has been made, to this "inside job" notion that I find lacking any merit. It is painting the entire series of events with too broad a brush.

Now, despite what you said (in defense) about "parroting", that wasn't meant as a stab at you, per se, but at the commonly-repeated refrains that stem from the "conspiracy" sites mostly, as a rule. The same "talking points" (as I think I mentioned) are repeated as a sort of mantra, it seems.

My first post to the web to warn my fellow Americans about allowing their emotions to cloud their judgement was on 9/12--I was vilified. In fact, no one at all was swayed by my argument until the Patriot Act was presented.

There is no doubt that the Bush administration used 9/11, after it fell into their laps, so-to-speak, in a disgustingly self-indulgent manner, in order to accelerate their agenda (which, I believe, was in planning, and would have proceeded regardless...the invasion of Iraq, and taking out of Hussein. ALL of the elements were in place, probably being geared up since November of 2000, since "Bush & Co." knew they'd prevail with the SCOTUS in the election debate...)

I have vacillated between two thoughts about the months preceding September 11 --- One is the intentional squashing of the intelligence that suggested the attacks were imminent; I am finding that one less and less likely, because, as noted in the paragraph above, the Bush people were planning to go to Iraq, and they were well capable of manufacturing evidence (think of Niger, and the "yellow cake" incident) to the point they even fooled Colin Powell (or, he let himself go along, not sure there...). The "Weapons of Mass Destruction" meme had already been planted, and was germinating too, well before 9/11. THAT was just another of their "fakery" ploys they had prepared.


The other idea is the incompetence angle - that the various dysfunctional, poorly-communicating intelligence services, and their competing assets -- their intercine rivalries and personal egos of the principle players at work -- led to the mistake of not realizing the import of the accumulating clues, and therefore not taking decisive action, to prevent it.

In shorter words, too many cooks, and no decision making.


Of the two, I am leaning to the latter. THIS also explains quite well the political nature of the "9/11 Commision Report", and why so many people 'smell' something not quite right with it...

NOT a 'cover our crimes' document, more of a "Cover Our A**es" type deal. Because, the intelligence failures might have been seen as criminally negligent, if looked at deeply enough. At the very least, a lot of career-enders there, for that same incompetence. Likely the very people that Bush would rely on as "allies" for his other agendas....

So, it is only the political expediency (not anything new to Washington, D.C.) to 'white-wash' these failures, and protect reputations, that has people sniffing the air. Unfortunately, this backfired on them; not realizing the paranoid sorts who would read into it differently, and start ot "dig" for something that really wasn't there.

Hence, a sample of those TEN items you mentioned, that are really just outgrowths of wild, wild speculations, and fueled by the nature of people, and their desire to be "in the know" ahead of everyone else --- to tilt at windmills, to steal from Don Quixote.

That, above, is what I mean by the "cottage industry" remark. Oh, and BTW:

Entrepreneurship is a given.

It is vile, though, when it is based on liles and inuendo. Profiting off of someone else's tragedy.

The 'yellow ribbons'? Yes, but for a different reason...THAT was misguided so-called "National Pride", and had a politically motivated bias, of course. Also nothing new, in politics.

You finished with the oft-mentioned "Silverstein moment".

I see that as yet another prime example of taking out of context, and manipulation (which I mentioned already) because it IS being done by the so-called "Truth movement". It is not the only example, though.


I am somewhat limited to express technically, because it's not my field of expertise (the psychology) so only from perspective of an 'armchair psychologist' do I arrive at these conclusions. Also, I gather a lot from various forms of media entertainment examples in fiction, and accounts from biographies, history, and so forth.

The human psyche has long been studied, of course.

The type of paranoia that leads to these sorts of "conspiracy" beliefs remeinds of what we used to call (before the Internet) 'Urban Legends'
(The "Poodle in the microwave' being one example I recall, from decades ago...)

An historical example is undeniable, and seems a parallel of sorts: The McCarthyism of the 1950s, and the so-called "red scare" in the USA.

The HUAC committee, in Congress, is particularly telling, by their vile actions of that time period.

reply to post by weedwhacker



And thank you. Your response is so well-centered and reasonable I had
to give you a star myself.

I expect your first go was rather a knee-jerk, and not necessarily
aimed at me.I now pause at adding you as "respected foe" or "friend",
for it appears we are kindred spirits on opposing sides of a fence.

My mind is fairly well set where I stand on this issue. What troubles me is the
motive. Like you say Bush had Iraq in his sights prior to 9/11, and 9/11
presents as an excellent false-flag to achieve this agenda, but to what
end.

I think the knee-jerk reaction is "War for Oil". But on the surface this seems
shallow. If the US were to forcibly usurp Iraq's oil there would be an
international backlash. Rather, If I had to fathom a guess, I would suppose
that the motive had myriad objectives; control of oil, increase of military
presence in the Middle East, increase cash-flow (perpetually) into the military
industrial complex (a war on terror is a war against shadow, and as such
may never be over), initiate, introduce, and increase funding for a US private
military (Blackwater), and finally secure and ready lands in Afghanistan
for an oil pipeline. I think all of those objectives can be easily shown to
be money-makers for the Bush/Cheney empire of family and friends, but
I still am not sure as to motive.

More sinister motives inre to the PTB are exampled by the haste with
which the Patriot Act was written and implemented (I believe the
document was ready before 9/11). And I never once believed Bush to
be stupid. I've known many who lack some aspect of intelligence who
are never-the-less, clever, cunning, and quite capable. And I believe, as you,
that at the very least 9/11 was utilized to rally the country to war...

As to your idea that the squelching of the 9/11 commission may have
been more of a "cover-our-inept-@sses" --than a--" cover-our crimes",
I had never thought about it this way and seems quite logical.

As for the ten items of evidence, it is exactly the preponderance of evidence
that is compelling. Many will cite one specific item as "proof" 9/11 was an
inside job, but it is the small mountain of suspicious actions, evidence to
the contrary of the official story, and examples of evidence that defy
reason if not physics that makes the case for me that 9/11 quite
probably was a false-flag.

Once again, nice reply...I think I'm going with "respected foe"

Is this OP being serious?!
You have alot of reading to do. Start with the 9/11 Commission and how that investigation was stone walled by the government (all according to the actual 9/11 Commission members). Then read into the inside dealing within wall street right before the attack. Then ask yourself about the Pentagon, and why our beloved govt is REFUSING to release security footage of that day, and how the damage doesnt match up to a plane that size, or even how the novice pilot could possibly fly in that manner. Or the Mossad agents found celebrating at the collapse of the twin towers. Dont even get me started on WTC7...

AND SO ON.....

reply to post by rival

Even though you are not addressing ME, I will respond if you don't mind.
When I attempt to share my thoughts with the ATS community on 911, and I bring simple, common sense arguments, a funny thing happens. The scope of the discussion changes...
Suddenly, because I question the Official Story, I am part of this LUNATIC fringe, I am a victim of a "for profit" group of people that are "cashing in" on 911. Or, I am suddenly against the GOOD people like the NYFD...
those brave individuals that gave their life to do the right thing!

Or, I cannot trust what I see with my own eyes,

Or, any evidence that I put my faith in is NOT really evidence AT ALL, just some people trying to CASH IN on 911.

Certain ATS personalities have a seemingly perverse desire to shut down critical thought on certain subject matter, 911 being one of them. When you can predict certain behavior in this regard, you have a choice. Entertain them while they crap on you, or ignore them. That is the way I see it. I choose ignore.

Originally posted by Stewie

Or, I am suddenly against the GOOD people like the NYFD...
those brave individuals that gave their life to do the right thing!

Most of the time, truthers will get these replies because they haven't thought through their position fully and are being challemged to think it through,

For example:

1- Truthers make claims that 7 couldn't have fallen due to small fires and therefore CD is the only solution. There are MULTIPLE sources for quotes from fire fighters that state that the building had heavy fires, fully involved, etc, and that they were afraid it would fall.

Every single one of you that claim that 7 only had small fires are calling them liars. But you most likely haven't thought of it that way, hence you get the vitriol.....

2- Truthers say that Silverstein said to "pull" 7 when he describes his conversation with fire personell. The FDNY, PAPD, and NYPD were all there around the collapse zone, keeping people out. Therefore, they would know whether or not 7 was CD'ed. It matters not what the theory here is - plant explosives on 9/11, or before, or with thermxte. If there was anagreement that 7 was to be CD'ed, then at the very least, several higher up in the FDNY know about it. Some of those guys lost family members that day - brothers, fathers, and sons. And yet according to these theories, they are keeping quiet about either the implications of 7 being preconfigured for demo, and what that implies for the towers.

So again, according to truther theories, someone in the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD is withholding information/lying.


THIS is ONE reason that we hold you in contempt.

reply to post by andre18


You have to go deeper to get out of the maze my friend.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


/sarcasm on

Oh so fires brought down WTC7?

/sarcasm off

Can you please explain what made these "heavy fires" inside WTC7? After all....It's got a bit of distance between 7 and the Twin Towers.....

reply to post by ElijahWan


Okay, I'll explain the fires, I'll explain, the tilting (listing) of building 7
prior to implosion (as witnessed by NYFD personel), and I'll explain
Silverstein's statement...IMO...That last part is important, that IMO part.
This IMO part is what leaves room for doubt, it is what leaves room to
counter opposing viewpoints. Stating as fact that which has not been
established as fact is why truthers are harassed. True intelligence keeps
an open mind until ALL doubt is removed. Silly people, however, see this
quality as a weakness, when in truth it is the greatest strength...Fools
rush in where angels fear....like a bull in china closet.

IMO...Building seven began to *list* (as planned) by the use of thermite
on central core columns. Fire was initiated and/or allowed as cover for
the weakening of the structural columns--hence the eyewitness testimony
to the tilting of the building and the (innocent) observation that "...the
building is coming down" by members of the first responders. (They
didn't have prior knowledge---they have experience, and the were making
observations based on their belief or experience.)

Silverstein DID have prior knowledge of the plan to implode building 7.
Whether he actually used the words "pull it" when communicating with the
NY fire chief is of no importance to my point of view. In my point of view,
the term "pull it" was the Freudian slip of a guilty conscious. I believe he
had bandied that term about previously with his co-conspirators and
it ~slipped out~ during this interview. Once again, these are my opinions,
they are open to new ideas and evidence, but until some new angle
presents itself...some plausible explanation as to why building 7
collapsed at free-fall speed, defying logic and reasona and physics...they
will remain my opinions.

The only other notion that has ANY merit is the notion the the sub-structure
of the WTC complex was compromised by the fall of building 1 and 2.
However I give this idea VERY little merit because I believe if that were true
the other buildings in the area should have been effected---building 7
was across the street and its base had more in common with
the buildings adjacent (to either side) than it did with the rest of the
WTC complex.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by rival]

reply to post by weedwhacker

The other idea is the incompetence angle - that the various dysfunctional, poorly-communicating intelligence services, and their competing assets -- their intercine rivalries and personal egos of the principle players at work -- led to the mistake of not realizing the import of the accumulating clues, and therefore not taking decisive action, to prevent it.

I have to disagree with your opinions, because evidence supports a cover up of a false flag operation. To think our government and military was incompetent on 911 and just weren’t doing their jobs, then perhaps, we would had found people accountable in the bush administration and our military. These people would have been investigated, fired and probably charged criminally, and the investigation in to the events of 911 would not have been covered up, if the OS was true.

The undisputable evidences supports it's self.
There are many credible people high up in our military and in our government, some who are not corrupt and are experts in their field who have come out and spoke against the OS, ( these people are the true patriots) and believe certain people in the Bush administration are responsible for orchestrating, and helping to carry out 911. These were not just mistakes made by our government officials. There were protocols that were not carried out, there was silence in our communications when the attacks occured, silence in our highest eschelon of government and milatary. This is not the behavior of the United States Miliatary when there is a calamity. The most damming evidences so far is the silence in the Bush administration on that morning on 911 and Vic president Dick Cheney’s office when all the events were unfolding. The American people haven’t been told anything as to why the silence for a whole hour while four alleged commercial airliners where flying over our highly restricted airspace. FAA, and NORAD were following the normal protocols but were not allowed to dispatch any interceptors without Dick Cheney’s given the orders, yet Cheney refuse to answer the calls, and the American people want to know why.

Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 "I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover [9/11] up."

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency ~ "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics...There was a derth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner... this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slamed into the Pentagon as a ' missile ' ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon .. all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the damage we expected .. but I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 0r 40 minutes, with the roof remaining relatively straight .. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon "
1. Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS ~ "The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11...A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building...Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system"
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer ~ "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly:
the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2...and WTC7...not hit by an airplane...the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon"

* Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army, Intelligence officer ~ "I view the 911 event ...as a matter that implies either...A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down or B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East"
Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Raymond L. McGovern ~ " I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke...just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11...making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11...that’s certainly an impeachable offense...But compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited."
National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, William Christison ~ "there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them...this all was totally an inside job… I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen... The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. … All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions... I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all... It's a monstrous crime"
U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, case officer CIA. Robert David Steele ~ "I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others...This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism...I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition"
CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations, Awarded Career

Intelligence Medal, Robert Baer ~ " Regarding the opinion there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."
Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the federal Aviation Administration. Team leader of the FAA's Red ( Terrorism ) Team in the Federal Air Marshall program, Coast Guard officer, Bogdan Dzakovic ~ "At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."
Minister of Justice, West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD - "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."

911blogger.com...

In shorter words, too many cooks, and no decision making.

Not likely, to many liars in the Bush administration hiding the evidence of a false flag operation.
Its not the first time our government used the FBI to plant fraudulent evidence to try and convince the American people something different happened. I am not saying all FBI agents are corrupt, some are good people, but like most huge organization there is corruption.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by andre18


As our former administration was so found of saying, "there was a failure to connect the dots".
We "truthers" have not failed to connect dots that indicate inside job. Anyone who researches all the information cannot fail to see that some of the previous administration and their supporters had everything to gain, starting with, before they were even in office, (I won't say elected)"The Project for the New American Century." and how all of the administration connects with profiting from the war in Iraq. source[3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.

And come oome on, the supposed hijackers were Saudi's so why war with Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia?

There is so many dots connecting complicity...if you want to find the truth, connect all the dots.

Originally posted by ElijahWan

"heavy fires"

See?

Your scare quotes indicates that you don't believe the FDNY guys.

You're calling them liars, and as such deserve zero respect.

You have earned contempt instead.

Originally posted by rival

Fire was initiated and/or allowed

Allowed?

So now YOU are calling the FDNY liars for saying that they couldn't fight the fires due to lack of water.

Like a typical truther, you're not thinking this through.

All of these people are not liars in my opinion. Everyone who was there knows the truth about the "unexplained" explosions.
Can't seem to get link working, sorry about edits.
8n-nT-luFIw[/yvid]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Skyline74]

reply to post by impressme


Actually, impressme, I am impressed.

I have to disagree with your opinions, because evidence supports a cover up of a false flag operation. To think our government and military was incompetent on 911 and just weren’t doing their jobs, then perhaps, we would had found people accountable in the bush administration and our military.

Stepping back a bit from all the hyperbole...this insistence of a so-called "false-flag"...needs to be separated out, from the factual history of the events and timeline of that day.

BUT, your second part, in the above highlighted paragraph snippet, is pertinent to understanding, and context.

The military response on 9/11 WAS NOT INCOMPETENT! This is a false, false meme that has been presented, and inserted, by "some" in the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" to infiltrate the basic lexicon of "talkig points" that 'they' wish to inhabit this topic.

And, any "accountabilty" I have referenced, before....it WAS a sort of incomptence, and the age-old game of (after the fact) 'CYA'....I do hope everyone knows that acronym? In case you don't, it's "Cover Your A$$".

THAT game ('CYA') after-the-fact, is likely the impetus for many, many of what "smells" so wrong about the events of 9/11, and hence, the many, many disparate (and contradictory) so-called "consipiracy theories" that have sprouted. To date.


I highly, highly recommend a book titled "Touching History" that has an in-depth chronicle of that day (9/11) in the USA, from the perspective of a pilot. The author conducted a great many interviews, and the personal accounts and realizations are compelling, and cut through a lot of the BS that has grown up surrounding this topic, over the many years. The author also delves deeply into the military response, and those details (and failures) and explains them quite well.



[edit on 9 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Skyline74
All of these people are not liars in my opinion. Everyone who was there knows the truth about the "unexplained" explosions.

If you're talking about the FDNY, then yes, they know da truth about these explosions.

They know through decades of experience that stuff blows up during a fire.

And that these were nothing new to them.

And to even imply that they are NOT screaming about some obvious demolitions when their brothers, sons, and fathers getting killed in the line of duty is absolutely disgusting.

You, like all the other truthers, don't have the capacity to think what you're implying. You too, have earned nothing but disgust and contempt from every thinking person in the world...

No, I'm talking about all the people in this video.

I still believe 9/11 was an inside job. And each day that goes by the evidence points more in that favor. I think Israel also had a hand in it, but since the government is taking marching orders from Israel and not investigating their spying, it is safe to say the US/Israel are one and the same.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by filosophia]