I want to know what YOU think happened on 9/11

[HornBuckler]

No Bullshit - No Polls - Just what YOU believed happened. Given what we now know/speculate.

I'll go first :)

I believe the attacks on 9/11, were in part, orchestrated by powers in our own government. The way the buildings fell, the fact that these planes weren't intercepted, the official story, the way the pResident sat like a schmuck, the inactive SS, the PNAC documents, the MSM coverage of the day and the days since - lead me straight to MIHOP.

That's what I think and that's what I am convinced of - as of now.


Feel free to rip me a new one if you wish - but what I am REALLY AFTER is WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED ON 9/11 AND WHY/HOW?


You can go all tinfoil hat on my ass all you want, but if you do, please express your opinion and what has led you to such.

[wildbilln864]

1. Well, no one has replied yet!?

Surprising considering the way both sides jump right in to debunk the other side's points.
Anyway, here's what I think could have been the case.
First, this was in the planning for years. Probably since the 90s. Hence the "new Pearl Harbor" phrase.
The neocons wanted to invade the Middle East and control the oil. They posited the idea to Clinton, but he wouldn't go along. They had to wait.
Along comes little naive G.W. Bush. He wants to be president. But with his reputation, it's not so likely. But then Karl Rove says to Bush, "Look, I'll make you president if you choose DC Dick for your VP runningmate." The shrub snickers, he doesn't believe he can be President but he says, "ok."
Meanwhile they've been tracking Atta and his fellow highjackers since they first got into the US. They have them bugged completely and tracked their every step(ABLE DANGER). They listened to communications between the terrorists and their superiors and were well aware that the plan was to hijack planes for some purpose. This would be the opportunity the PNAC ers would need to finally put their plan into action if they could play this right. They had the capability to remotely take over the planes from anyone on board the aircraft(operation HomeRun). http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
Once the highjackers had taken the plane, a PNAC agent or agents, took control of the plane from the highjackers and flew the planes into the predetermined targets. Also during the early preparations for this event they also placed cutting charges(thermite) in the necessary places to bring WTC 1 and 2 to the ground in order to enhance the shock and awe of the viewing public. Possibly this same agent/agents who controlled the planes also set off the charges in the buildings.
So possibly there really was a Boing that hit the pentagon, but it was controlled by persons outside the airplane.
Does any of that sound possible to anyone?

[HornBuckler]

2. It does to me.

Thanks for replying btw - I was beginning to wonder why it took so long for a response :)

your thoughts are definitely possible and indeed probable - I, however, don't buy a lick of the 19 hi-jacker story for shit. The main reason is - what would a terrorist cell (al Qaeda, whatever) have to gain from such attacks? They would lose 19 of some of their best men, for what? It doesn't seem to me they would have any benefit of it. They hate our freedoms? What? They get 3k killed and that sucks. But if they were looking for body count they could have done a shit load better. So what would they have been after? Fear in the American Public? Sounds more of what our own government is after rather than some unknown terrorists. Look at who has benefited, Al Qaeda? Hell No - The US Government, well I'll be damned, BINGO.

Just my two cents- thanks for posting!

[mirandapriestly]

3. Your post makes sense

yeah, why would they pick those buildings? They could have done much more "body count" damage as horrible as it sounds. I think that so called "al queda" is as much CIA and other intelligence agencies as it is "terrorists".
I wonder if there weren't people they wanted to kill that were in the buildings and/or planes - Raytheon employees for example. I think they might have wanted to get rid of something in building 7 and there is probably a story behind the gold. It's funny that that valuable coin was moved out of bldg 7 in July. Another coincidence.

[HornBuckler]

4. Another good post.

Yeah - it always struck me as odd - take all the other questions/anomalies and throw them out for a moment. What did the terrorists want to achieve? A war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems like that would be the last thing these Al Qaeda/terrorists would want. However, if you look at the terrorists objectively - I (for one) tend to see the outcome of such attacks as 'desirable' if you remove Al Qaeda and replace it with current government operandi.

[mirandapriestly]

47. how true, how true

when people say the terrorists wanted to achieve fear among the American people it really sounds like they ae talking about the Bush admin. THEY are the ones who have benefitted, they are the ones who wanted to attack the M.E., they got EVERYTHING they wanted.

[Grateful for Hope]

49. To say nothing of the fact

that this admin has clearly set out to create fear (all those terror alert levels, constant reminders of terrorism and 9/11).

Why would terrorists care if Americans are fearful or not? On the other hand, keeping Americans fearful has served the admin well -- as both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as the Patriot Act, have shown us.


On edit: corrected typo

[zonmoy]

88. perhaps

there are two possible answers. one is that some sort of malevolence that wanted conflict and hatred between religions in order to better manipulate people through religion. another is that one government or another either wanted to steal resourses or to decimate the middle east so that their agenda cant be resisted.

[greyl]

9. They weren't going for body count when they blew up the Buddhist monuments

Destroying the symbols was important to them.

[CJCRANE]

13. Good point.

I believe that the hijackers were unwittingly involved in a joint venture with the neocons.

On Osama's side it was a demonstration of his reach but more importantly for the neocons it was the perfect 'cataclysmic event' photo-op needed to gain the political will for a pre-emptive war policy.

[dailykoff]

20. You think Afghani talibani blew up the Trade Center?

Where have you been the last four and half years?

[mirandapriestly]

27. That was the Taliban

they were trying to get rid of iconic religious symbols from other religions. Totally different. It really made me sick when they did that,btw

[greyl]

30. You want to draw a real distinction between those two "groups"?

Speculating that the evidence leads away from the terrorists because the body count wasn't high enough is genetically illogical. Add to that the motivation to destroy symbols that are important to ones enemy(saddam statue), and you have to admit that "low body count" doesn't incriminate any specific group.

[petgoat]

32. "low body count doesn't incriminate any specific group."

It's certainly strange to me. They struck at 8:45 when the buildings wouldn't
have been fully populated until after 9:00. They struck the Pentagon in place
where they hit 100 civilan construction workers and only 25 actual Pentagon personnel.

They hit the tops of the towers when striking lower down would have trapped more
people above the strike zone. Al Qaeda terrorists seem to be more merciful than the
other kind.

[greyl]

33. It was The Pentagon and The World Trade Center!

Symbolic.

If anything, the fact that the targets were great symbols to the USA, points the guilty finger away from an inside job hoax.

It's creepy that someone believes a couple hundred simultaneous murders is a low number.

[petgoat]

34. It's a low number when they could have got ten times more.

And your idea that because the attacks caused great symbolic injury to the USA therefore
it couldn't have been the Bushcists that attacked makes no sense.

Great symbolic injury was necessary to justify the "everything's different now" idea, the
"pre-emptive war is okay" idea, the "torture is patriotic" idea, the "constitutional rights
aid the terrorists" idea.

[greyl]

35. Well, I see things differently. nt

[Old and In the Way]

51. If AQ wanted to really hurt the Great Satan, why wouldn't they have

crashed into the nuclear power plants at Indian Point? Seems that would be much more than a symbolic attack.

[quickesst]

61. greyl...

"If anything, the fact that the targets were great symbols to the USA, points the guilty finger away from an inside job hoax."

You don't think the gubment would have thought about that? Just sayin'..
quickesst

[leftofthedial]

64. that these buildings are symbolically important does not point away

from an inside job

[mirandapriestly]

44. illogical

is connecting anybody of middle eastern descent who destroys something to "terrorism".
Yeah, the Taliban and "al queda " did have something in common - they have both been at one time or another CIA assets.

[greyl]

45. Yes, that would be an illogical overgeneralization.

The history and definitions of al queda and taliban are unrelated to the "low body count" angle, however. It's worth its own thread or five.
The body count itself doesn't incriminate anyone.

[mirandapriestly]

46. agreed, the body count doesn't incriminate anyone

really, it's just something to think about. I don't hink the taliban is the bamiyan buddhas are a good comparison, though, they weren't suicide bombers.

[greyl]

48. Not to be disagreeable, but "just something to think about"?

Didn't we just agree that it's irrelevant? Imo, there are too many titillating "just something to think abouts" floating around that are a waste of time to think about further than the time it takes to discover that they're irrelevant.

[mirandapriestly]

54. I agree that it doesn't conclusively incriminate,

but suicide terrorists generally seek areas that are relatively densely populated, they don't seem to seek out buildings for symbolic or other purposes (except, obviously embassies in foreign countries). This is from what I have read and seen I don't have a lot of expertise on
the subject. The bamiyan buddhas were not an act of suicide terror. I did , however, rent a documentary on a Pakistani terrorist and unwittingly watched it only several days before 911. My impression of the would be suicide bomber in the doc and the 911 suicide hijackers was that their circumstances were entirely dissimilar.
There is also the issue of the plane hitting the only part of the pentagon that had been remodeled for protection against attacks. That is getting into another topic, but how likely is it that Hanjour would strike the only remodeled part of Pentagon, thereby substantially reducing casualties and damage?

The patterns/goals of Islamic terrorists, as opposed to what happened on 9-11, would be a good topic, I don't think I've seen it discussed much.

[greyl]

56. It's either relevant or it isn't.

That's one case where there is little, if any, grey area.
Over 3000 lives were taken. More than any other "terrorist"* attack.
It's not like they attacked a HomeDepot in the middle of the night.

"The patterns/goals of Islamic terrorists,..., would be a good topic, I don't think I've seen it discussed much."

I'd bet we'd agree that "they hate us for our freedom" is a gross misstatement designed to take the responsibility off of us to wage peace instead of war in the mideast. Very simply put, "they" hate "us" for restricting their freedom.



*terrorist in quotes because I think some of what our troops are (edit: ordered to do /edit) doing fits the definition of terrorism.

[sabbat hunter]

18. terrorists

dont care about themselves. they think they are goign to go to heaven and be matryrd. the leaders dont take the smartest ones in the bunch for suicide missions

why would anyone blow themselves up?

they werent looking for a body count, but to instill terror in us and destroy a symbol (or at least what they perceived) of westernism. the WTC.

why does hamas/islamic jihad/al asqa martyrs brigade use suicide bombers? to instill fear.

[Old and In the Way]

24. But do the 9/11 hi-jackers really fit the typical terrorist bomber profile

My impression with ME suicide bombers is that they are poor, poorly educated, easily manipulated, and revenge seekers (usually to avenge another family member). Most of the 9/11 hi-jackers were upwardly mobile, Westernized, educated, with no dead families to avenge. Of course, we have the fact that a lot of the originally named hi-jackers are still alive, so who really knows?

And the #1 bad guy, Atta.....he must have been a really good suicidist. He certainly gave no indication that he was hell bent on ending his life based on the good times he was having in Florida. Could he have been a asset who thought he'd be playing a role on 9/11? That is conceivable to me.

[mirandapriestly]

28. Exactly!

These guys did not fit the profile that I had been familiar with. Several, at least, were from well to do families, well educated, westernized girlfriends, it just doesn't fit. One had let his dad get him a new Mercedes and was discussing marriage plans with his girlfriend.

[wildbilln864]

58. I buy the 19 highjackers because...

though fewer may have been the case. They were just patsies. Maybe they highjacked the planes believing they were on a different kind of mission. Or maybe it was to hit those targets reported. But the MIHOPers made sure it was a big success! That's MHO anyway.
I don't want to believe that individuals in my own government were involved. But sadly, when they will not give straight forward transparency, and destroyed the evidence lickity split, well, WTF! If all the documents and tapes and videos were to be released to the public, we'd know exactly what happened. Why not do that? Until there are complete and thorough investigations of every detail related to how this was allowed to happen, there will continue to be suspicion and speculation of government compliance. Why don't they just release all the evidence in it's entirety? That's the biggest reason I believe they are criminally involved. Someone could and should have prevented it! Now, those involved must cover each other's asses to avoid being caught.
One question I have is who, if there was a who, who was it specifically that set off the charges in the WTCs?

[sabbat hunter]

68. best men?

terrorists gain by creating terror. thats what al qaeda did on 911.

"best men" terrorists dont care about human life, even their own.

they werent looking for a high body count. they were looking to take out a symbol of america and create terror in america.

it isnt about losing men to the terrorists, otherwise why would they bother with suicide bombers, etc

their goal is to create fear among people. to make them wary of what they are doing and who is around.

and it worked.

al qaeda doesnt only hate our freedoms, they hate everything about america, its modern society. its belief that all are equal.

just look how women and non muslims are treated in countries run by shaira law.
al qaeda wants to establish a muslim caliphate again. this time over the whole world. force everyone to be muslim or die.

they could have taken the towers out at night when no one was there.

if they were interested in a body count they would have used planes that left later when the towers would have been full of people. but that wasnt their goal.

they took out a huge symbol of america and westernism.

[myzenthing]

96. Think like a prosecutor...

One of the things that's been helpful for me when thinking about 9/11 is to picture it as prosecutor or criminal investigator would.

Now, I don't have any formal legal training, but as I understand it, when you are looking to prove a case you look at three things:

1. Who had the motive?
2. What had the opportunity?
3. Who benefited from the crime?

Now, upon first glance I can see two possible candidates, al Queda or the NeoCons.

First al Queda: Their supposed motive was that they "hate out freedom" and they want to spread terror. Sounds pretty vague, but I suppose it's within the realm of possibility. Did they have the opportunity? Under normal circumstances, one would have to say no. There would have been no way for them to be sure that the alleged hijackers wouldn't be stopped at airport check-ins and that the hijacked planes would not have been shot down out of the sky before they reached their targets.

Did al Queda benefit from the crime? I think most people would agree that the answer is no. Many of their top leaders have been killed or captured. Their funds have been frozen. Their network is scattered and disorganized. And the U.S. economy is still intact and there are more U.S. troops than ever in the Middle East.

Now, the NeoCons: As stated in PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", their motive is crystal clear - significantly increase U.S. military spending and expand U.S. military power overseas (especially in the Middle East). Naturally, a "new Pearl Harbor" would be the catalyst for this expansion.

Did the NeoCons have the opportunity? Absolutely. Many of the members of PNAC were in prominent positions in the Bush administration in 2001, including many of the top positions in the Pentagon and the White House. As such, they could easily ensure that various air defense wargames were scheduled for the morning of 9/11, have charges planted in the twin towers and building 7, and orchestrate the subsequent cover-up of the crime.

Now, perhaps the most important question: did the NeoCons benefit from 9/11? Even people who don't accept MIHOP will admit that 9/11 was indeed a tremendous opportunity for the Bush administration to carry out PNAC's agenda. Not to mention the financial gains reaped by Halliburton and a multitude of other defense contractors and officials due to the "War on Terror". And of course, no one in any position of responsibility was ever punished for the "intelligence failures" on 9/11.

I dunno. Sounds like a pretty open and shut case to me...

[Old and In the Way]

23. Sounds plausible to me.

Plus you had live military simulations going on that day. Could terrorist hijacking and RC testing have been part of the exercise? Were those 4 planes part of the exercise? Seems to have been a lot of confusion with what planes were really hi-jacked and which ones were false targets. Considering that you have the largest military exercise of the year underway and no planes managed to intercept any of the planes is mighty suspicious. Then you have Eberhardt out of the country, Meyers chatting away with Max Cleland, Rumsfield doing triage, Bush AWOL, and Cheney somewhere underground running the show. Who was in charge?

[leftofthedial]

63. in planning since at least Watergate

so, the 70's

[rman]

5. I'm not sure exactly what did happen,

but i'm sure that it didn't happen as portrayed in the Official Story.
Lying officials is a strong indicator of a coverup.

Also we don't need to know exactly what did happen in order to get this investigated properly. All that's needed is to show that the Official Story makes no sense. The purpose of investigations is to uncover what exactly did happen.

[HornBuckler]

6. BINGO

well said - well said indeed

All I want is a REAL investigation - will you and I live to see it?

let's hope so

:toast:

[CJCRANE]

7. I'm MIHOP

but not 100% sure of the mechanics of what happened on the day.

I look more at the financial and political background. Obviously the neocons benefitted greatly from 9/11 but so did
B*sh's 'allies' Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I think these two countries were leant on or manipulated by B*shco
to aid the 9/11 operatives financially and of course the FBI, CIA, DOD etc were heavily leant on to avoid any investigations that could uncover the plot.

[Virginia Dare]

8. What I don't believe...

the "official" story.


1) There was definitely some inside the U.S. Government help, whether it went all the way to the top, who knows, but all signs point in that direction.

2) Flight 93 was headed to the U.S. Capitol and it was shot down.

3) The anthrax attacks were directly related to 9/11.

[CJCRANE]

11. Flight 93 was delayed 41 minutes at departure...

If it hadn't been delayed it most likely would've hit its target...

[StealthyDragon]

31. If it actually existed.

I've seen no physical evidence as of yet.

Have you?

[sabbat hunter]

10. sat like a schmuck

well he sat that way because he is a schmuck! :P

i think what happened is that planes hit the WTC 1 and 2, and due to damage and perhaps engineering failures/shortcomings. i also think that a plane hit the pentagon.

as for the plane in PA, i think that terrorists took it over, the passengers attempted to take it back but it was shot down either before the could or before they could commicate that they could it was shot down.

the president is an idiot and sat there in florida looking like one, not knowing what to do until his aides acted and wisked him away.

i think 911 happened due to incompetance and failure to deviate from a set of plans.

the plan was/is if a hijacking is taking place to look for it over the ocean not over land as the planners didnt think the hijacking would start at a US airport (incompetance and arrogance)

this current regime is both arrogant and incompetant. from day one until now.

[Virginia Dare]

12. One big thing that puzzles me...

why did the secret service react (or not react as the case may be) the way they did?

It just doesn't make sense to me. At the very least, you would think they would have whisked him out of the room got him in his bullet proof limo and surrounded him with semi-automatic weapons? That way if they saw a plane coming they could outrun it certainly? How could they be so sure Bush was safe at that particular moment. It just doesn't add up.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. To say nothing of the safety of the children n/t

[Old and In the Way]

25. Because the script didn't plan for 93 to be sitting on the tarmac for 25

unscheduled minutes?

[lightbulb]

15. the enablers

From the blocked FBI investigations of terrorist leads (which time and again rendered field agents both baffled and outraged) to the utter paralysis of our air defenses and apparent indifference of our leaders during the attacks, the evidence of guilt on the part of certain members of our government is overwhelming.

Key members of the intelligence community and the executive branch knew when and how the attacks were going to occur. And while I've entertained theories about thermite in the towers, I'm undecided on just how far things went in that regard. There is some evidence to support it, but going that direction would have increased the insider's risk of exposure exponentially. What if something went wrong and the buildings didn't collapse? All that evidence just sitting up there screaming INSIDE JOB! I think perhaps they knew the planes would hit the towers, but didn't expect the towers to collapse; didn't mean to allow THAT much damage to the city infrastructure. The insiders might actually have been as shocked and horrified as most of us when the towers went down, perhaps even more so.

[CJCRANE]

16. It also

seems that 9/11 on its own wasn't enough to keep the population and the legislature cowed, hence the *nthr*x was used to prolong the sense of dread and paranoia.

(As I alluded to above, if flight 93 had knocked down the US Capitol building, B*sh-Cheney's power-grab would've been much easier too).

[CJCRANE]

17. Looking at it as a whole -

the attacks on the two towers were the 'spectacle', the attack on the Pentagon (the top military installation) provided the act of war/casus belli, and if the capitol building had been knocked down that would've ushered in a state of emergency and de facto dictatorship.

[Hoping4Change]

19. I don't believe the official version at all because there are too many

oddities too numerous to list but the ones that come to mind are

1 - Bush's behaviour in the classroom

2 - war games on the same day

3 - unprecedented destruction of evidence from WTC

4 - the absolutely unbelievable coincidence that the portion of the Pentagon that was hit was largely vacant because it was being renovated

5 - the fact that the plane that hit the Pentagon made a extremely difficult maneuver to hit the portion of the Pentagon undergoing renovations. Why didn't the unlicensed pilot simply aim the plane at the bullseye?

[Mist]

21. Too many questions, and the official stories make no sense:

In order to believe the official story about 9/ll, I would have to believe:

that jet fuel (kerosene) continued burning after it would have evaporated or burned up

the shock of the jets hitting the towers somehow compromised the cladding on every single steel beam on the impact floors, allowing for:

the still-burning jet fuel to weaken the steel beams (even the ones across the building at the farthest point from the impact) causing the free-fall collapse of the towers, whose fall was not impeded by all the subsequent floors, even though all the floors were supported by steel beams (steel beams that were not compromised by being exposed to high temperatures)

I would have to believe:

the floors under the impact floors did not absorb the impact of the floors above falling on them

burning jet fuel causes the length of several steel beams to heat up simultaneously

fires composed only of burning building materials were still burning one month later in the rubble of the towers

no one involved in air traffic control knew what to do when jets suddenly changed their flight patterns (as if this eventuality had never been thought of or planned for)

that it makes sense to sell the metal from the buildings to a scrap metal dealer, without any forensic studies being done

I would have to believe:

the witnesses, including firemen, at the WTC who heard explosions were all having audio hallucinations

the unusual number of put options a few days before 9/ll somehow doesn’t matter

large office buildings that normally had several thousand people in them at the time of impact had about 1,500 people per tower in them that morning

that buildings that are built to withstand fires somehow didn’t that day, and that fires caused the fall of the two towers and the collapse of building 7, though other serious fires in skyscrapers left those buildings standing even after several hours of fire

I would have to believe:

that a jet flying low into a building would leave much of the lawn in front of the impact point untouched

that a jet traveling at high speed impacting a concrete building hit that building with only its nosecone, leaving no trace of impact from wings or engines

that a commercial jet flying into a concrete building somehow disintegrated on impact- the jet, traveling at high speed, demolished the section of the concrete building on impact, but somehow that impact caused the jet to almost totally disintegrate, leaving a very small amount of debris in the area

that it’s normal procedure, in collecting pieces of a crashed jet, to have office workers, in slacks and short-sleeved shirts, saunter out to the lawn and pick up bits of debris.

In short, too many questions, still.

[Americus]

22. I'm w/you lulu. Think that's why OCTSpin Doctors make no sense, either?

Too many convenient conveniences, reliance on biased sources, manufactured/built evidence, and their all-time favorites: incompetence and negligence.

[dailykoff]

26. I think they dusted off some nutty plan that Poppy shelved

back in the day that Junior decided to resurrect to show everybody what big cajones he has. Whether it went entirely according to plan I don't know but I suspect it did. The WTC was demolished, that much is obvious. It was a money-losing white elephant anyway and the real estate guys were champing at the bit to build in midtown like they've been doing in style for the last four years.

[mirandapriestly]

29. That sounds about right

BushI's CIA connections had taught him how to go about this kind of thing . What was that comment he made about if the American people knew what they really did ?

[Universal Patriot]

36. Is there any doubt...

...about the important things we all agree on? The Bush Administration and 9/11 Commission have lied to us, otherwise they would have released definitive evidence supporting the official story. Is there a higher priority for the Admin than justifying their extremely unpopular war? If they could, they would.

The MSM must be a propaganda machine, otherwise all of this conflicting information would have been discussed and laid to rest by now - yet, none of this gets any significant or balanced air time. This is a huge story that would generate ratings/profits! Since when have reporters passed up a big story, for years no less? Are they really that afraid of ridicule, or that dedicated to national security?

These issues alone lay to rest the incompetence theory. I simply refuse to believe that the highly intelligent people (well, except W.) who appear to run our country and journalistic institutions are that insanely incompetent.

Ultimately, the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP is moot. Either way our leaders conspired to let the deaths of thousands of Americans become a means to their ends. Either way these people consider us mindless sheep who exist to do their bidding. To argue otherwise is to say that they are mass murderers who really do have our best interest at heart...

That said, my best guess (for now) on the actual events of 9/11 is:

1. The planes that hit the Twin Towers were drones, remote controlled and possibly empty of passengers. The technology was certainly available. I believe they were drones because this operation was so important, the perps would have most likely removed any possibility for human error, certainly the piloting and probably the chance that any passengers could alter the flight path.

2. The Towers were brought down by CD. Even if the fireproofing was entirely removed from the steel beams by the impact, they were certified by UL to 3000 degrees - a temperature not reached in the initial impact and explosion, much less the subsequent fire. The only official explanation is FEMA's assertion that a 'liquid eutectic mixture' containing iron, oxygen and sulfur(?) made a 'hot corrosion attack' on the steel. Fire Engineering magazine called the FEMA investigation a 'half-baked farce'.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

3. I believe the Pentagon was hit by an airplane, but what plane I'm not sure. Most everyone here seems to have a better grasp on the specifics of the issue, but for me there are relatively simple problems with the OCT. First, what about the 6-ton steel/titanium engines on each side of that bird? As Loose Change pointed out, those things would not have melted or disintegrated in the explosion. They would have been at least partially buried in the building, yet the windows to the sides of the hole are intact?? I have yet to hear an explanation for that. Also, if the black box was recovered, why wouldn't the gov't release just a few snippets to prove their point? They say because they wouldn't upset the 9/11 families - as if totally ignoring their questions and concerns aren't enough?

4. The Somerset County coroner said that there were no bodies at the supposed crash site. No real evidence of plane wreckage either. So, no, I won't be seeing United 93 at the theater.

What happened to the original airplanes and their passengers? I don't know, and I don't think anybody really does except those who were there. What's important is that we focus on what we do know (the Kean-Hamilton report is a big ol' pack of lies) and get that info out to the mainstream. Then the extent of the uncomfortable truth will find its way to the surface, and the general populace can take action.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

42. Oh yeah, like you're an "old timer".nt

[Jazz2006]

53. Never said I was.

Those reading comprehension problems acting up again?

[mirandapriestly]

55. I used the word "like"

which means "as if" indicating that it was implied by your post that you had been around for along time. You're the one with the comprehension problem, if you can't figure that out. I turned ignore off to see what you were saying to a brand new poster. You are trying to intimidate a poster who has no way of knowing that you are not representative of the posters here.

[Jazz2006]

59. Good god,

I implied no such thing.

You read an awful lot into what isn't there while simultaneously appearing unable to read what is there.

Pfft.

[mirandapriestly]

60. You've become awfully bold

in the one week it took you to reach 1000 posts by saying 'hee hee' and "indeed" and "tsk tsk".

[Jazz2006]

62. I've always been bold.

And you're still lying, as usual.

[mirandapriestly]

72. Bold

doesn't hide behind a keyboard. You have pent up anger & hatred that you try to take out on strangers on the internet.

[Jazz2006]

73. It took you 2 weeks to come up with that lame response?

Pfft.

As usual, you're playing the whining card.

Poor you, poor you, some people disagree with your whackjob theories so they are bullying you or harassing you or they're exhibiting non-existent hatred, etc. etc. You post the same crap all over these threads ad nauseum.

Just like your constant refrains of "wah wah wah, DU discriminates against paranoid conspiracy theorists and make us post in the dungeon so nobody should be able to disagree with the tinhatters, wah wah wah" that you interject at regular intervals as well.

As always, you can't address the real issues so you go off on a whining tangent hoping that it will divert attention from the facts. Blah blah blah.

It really does grow wearisome listening to your ongoing and perpetual whining.

While you like to pretend that those who disagree with you are angry or hateful, that is simply untrue. Those who disagree with you are typically thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, people who happen to also be critical and analytical thinkers. You don't seem to get that.

Moreover, while you like to pretend that those who disagree with you are angry or hateful, the reverse seems abundantly obvious. You fling abuse regularly and you lie outright regularly, all the while hoping that you can hide your bile amongst your cheerleader posts. It's sad, really.

I don't think you're fooling anyone.

Contrary to your unfounded and ludicrous assertion, I have no pent up anger or hatred toward anyone, let alone strangers on the internet. You, on the other hand, seem to thrive on anger and hatred toward anyone who doesn't share your point of view, and you manifest it by making up complete and utter lies, ascribing all manner of bad behaviour to others that are really only your own bad qualities, doing your little cheerleading routine and your tag team routine, etc. It's all quite sad.

I truly hope that you seek and obtain professional help. Or at least get out of the dungeon once in a while and try to gain some perspective. Perspective is always a good thing.

[Americus]

74. Ethics committee - isn't intentional harassment a violation of DU rules?

I don't know what you do for a living, and it's none of my business, but I can't imagine your employer allowing you to show off your contempt for others the way you do so here at DU. Wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you ceased from acting in such a defensive manner? Besides, aren't you concerned that you could lose your posting privileges here if you continue to mistreat and show a lack of respect for DUers whose views differ from yours?

[Grateful for Hope]

75. You seem like a logical thinker

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HornBuckler]

84. Hate to bust in on this back and forth......

but why not answer the question poised in the initial post? you can always bicker with miranda and the others later - I want to know what YOU think went down, if you would be so kind.

[Americus]

38. Cogent post. The DU community needs more people like you, UPatriot

Congratulations for opening with a winner. You have the kind of mind, ability to reason, and communication skills that could keep an Army of OCT Spin Doctors gainfully employed for a very long time.

Welcome to DU.

[Grateful for Hope]

43. Welcome to DU

A very well-written first post!

:toast:

[Old and In the Way]

50. Welcome onboard!

Nice 1st post. Those that control the show have a big investment in the "Bush is incompetent" theory. He's actually very well suited for his role of front man for the Republican Crime Syndicate. Over time, the shocking events of 9/11 have become reframed as more information on this administration's actions before and after that day have emerged. What may have been unthinkable on 9/12/01 is no longer unconceivable. Any administration that could lie about the causus belli for war in Iraq certainy has the capability to pull off "a New Pearl Harbor". There are thousands of examples of people who have killed to take a few dollars....why would a few thousand lives be important to those who would steal trillions and consolidate their power?

[mirandapriestly]

57. I like your post, too. You have to wonder why the

cover up & conflicting stories. Why won't we get answers for some of the most basic questions? I don't see how witholding information from Americans could be for "national security", it's to protect themselves, not us, just like everything else.

[Twist_U_Up]

66. Good post

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

people are waking up

[m0nkeyneck]

89. xlnt post amigo

[HughBeaumont]

39. Tossing out CD and Pentagate, which I DO see credibility in . . .

I believe there are more than enough dubious events, mysterious and unexplained happenings, defiance of common logic, science and experience and obvious political/corporate connections to and about 9/11 to hang Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Larry Silverstein, Rudolph Giuliani, Bush 41, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, the Saudi royals, and the rest of the PNAC/neo-con stronghold who worked hand in glan to make this debacle happen for defense contractor/Pentagon/Carlyle Group profit, suppression of rights, a scapegoat for governmental accountability and a means of generally holding American patriotism hostage to the Republican party.

That being said, WTC7 looked EXACTLY LIKE controlled demolition, I don't give a fuck WHAT anyone else theorizes.

And to those that think "when someone says BFEE, Bush Junta, I just think they're a few ants short of a picnic", you need to wake the hell up and FAST. Read Crossing the Rubicon. Read The Terror Timeline. These guys are WORSE than evil. They don't give a shit about you or anyone or anything else. All they care about is cash and how to make billions of it.

[peanutbrittle]

40. I believe.....

Zionist's, Bin Laden's & Bush Cabal MIHOP
Cheney
Rummy
Ted Olson's wife I believe to be alive
PNAC
Dov Zakheim (Remote Control Aircraft)
Abramoff (somehow involved)
Adnan Khashoggi
Aircraft possibly switched or flown into Atlantic (flight 77, flight 93?)
Controlled Demolition in towers to be sure
19 hijackers some possibly alive, some patsie's

In a nutshell

[coalition_unwilling]

41. None of the response have mentioned that a senior member of

Pakistan's Intelligence Service (the "ISI") allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta in the days shortly before the 9/11 attacks. (I've read it in David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" but I can't source it right now as I don't have the book with me.)

This allegation, if true, so screams out that this was an intel "black ops" that it alone merits an independent investigation.

While I would officially call myself "agnostic" as to the questions of what happened on 9/11 and why\how, I find myself inclining toward a view that it was a rogue intel black ops, akin to Operation Northwoods, carried out by an de facto intelligence cabal.

The official 9/11 narrative (itself a conspiracy theory, btw) I see as the outer layer of an onion. If that narrative gets shredded because of all the incongruities and inconsistencies others here have mentioned, I'm sure the plotters have further narratives that contain built-in plausible deniablity as to the true identities of the plotters.

The old Latin phrase "Cui bono?" ("Who benefits?") comes to mind as I cast about for possible plotters. Since oil seems to be a common denominator linking Afghanistan and Iraq (pipeline in the case of the former and reserves in the case of the latter) I would not be entirely surprised if the truth were that some Blackwater types connected to the oil industry had crucial roles.

[petgoat]

52. "oil seems to be a common denominator "

Opium is another factor. Oil and opium together are vital to the banking system.
The Boston Globe says Saudi oil was worth $150 billion in 2005.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/21/saudi_arabias_oil_revenues/

Mike Ruppert says the illicit drug business is worth $500 billion a year.

[mirandapriestly]

85. Yes, the 9-11 Commission said the financing

was unimportant, which has got to be one of the worst red flags for a cover up I have ever seen. Someone on this thread posted a few days ago, that they thought that perhaps Bush & Co didn't know the full extant of what was going to go down just perhaps a hijacking and that some rogue operations went the extra mile,that would explain the holes in the planning. I like your post.

[Rich Hunt]

65. well...

I think it was a bunch of domestic fascists myself, with a few of their Arab fascist drug buddies in the mix. I've seen too much hysterical lying Orwellian bullshit coming from the far right to think otherwise.

They really think they're going to get away with it, but they're not.

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. I believe the "OCT"

But then I am paid to. ;)

[petgoat]

69. You raise an important point.

Professionals are paid to be serious-minded, competent, sober people, and level-headed
people. They're supposed to spend their off-hours taking care of their clothes,
exercising, taking care of personal business, raising their kids, scrubbing the shower
stall, and having a bit of clean healthy fun.

They're not supposed to spend their off hours researching the peculiarities of the
RFK assassination, or looking at pictures of the collapse of the WTC. That's not
professional.

To a large extent, many tens of millions ARE to some degree paid to believe the
OCT. Paid not to "waste" their time investigating it.

[mirandapriestly]

79. heh heh.nt

[mirandapriestly]

80. actually a 5 year old could disrupt this forum

it's probably a combination.

[European Socialist]

70. I'm MIHOP lite--Chimpster wanted hi-jackings--not buildings blown up.

[mirandapriestly]

71. That's an interesting take,

why do you think so?

[European Socialist]

76. If it was a full MIHOP--Bush would have been at Camp David....

and Rummy not at the Pentagon. Also, there would have been Iraqi's on the planes. And then there was Condiliar Rice statement about not knowing the terrorists would crash into buildings. I think elements of Israel and Saudi Arabia were involved as well as al Qaeda--And the USA role was to get out of the way.

[mirandapriestly]

78. Ah, so the imperfect planning

that all us "nutty ct'ers" have picked up on. So since some rogue elements had to go farther than initially planned, they couldn't really get all their facts straight,without "official" help. You could be right. Looking at it from the point of view of the sort of vague, generic hijackers, that makes sense.

[petgoat]

81. "there would have been Iraqi's on the planes. "

Interesting idea.

Of course since the strongest argument against MIHOP is that the Bush administration
is too incompetent to pull it off, the notion that a project conceived by lunatics
and executed by fanatical ideologues had a few loose ends seems reasonable.

Rice's statement is unsupportable. The French disrupted a hijacking (flight 8969) in 1994
that targetted the Eiffel tower. Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to fly hijacked aircraft
into Sears Tower, WTC, and the Pentagon was known in 1995.

[HornBuckler]

83. Ideally - Iraqis on the planes may have been nice...

But it didn't really matter did it? We went right on ahead and attacked Iraq anyway - with or without 'em.

I don't think that played much into it - I think you make a good point but I'd go so far as rephrasing your last sentence


I think elements of Israel and Saudi Arabia were involved as well as al Qaeda -- and the USA role was to tell them what and when and how to do it.

just my two cents...

[mirandapriestly]

86. Wes Clark said in an interview that the WH

told him to try to tie 9-11 in with Iraq when he talked to CNN on 9-11. It's on a thread in the GD about Clark and his statement that the Iraq war was a coverup for 9-11. I thought it was interesting that that happened and wondered why they didn't stock the plane with some iraqi's too? were there any Iraqi members of what they call Al Qaeda prior to 911?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1401315&mesg_id=1401315

[HornBuckler]

87. hadn't heard that....

but it makes sense - thanks for the post. Sheesh Wes Clark, that guy has been shot down more times than the yellow ducks at a carnival.

I like him, but damn did he get screwed during the run-up to the election.

[savemefromdumbya]

90. Operation between different countries

the Al Q thing was a cover for the various governments of countries involved. Took place during military exercise. Caused confusion. Whole thing was faked.

[mirandapriestly]

91. hmm, that sounds interesting

can you elaborate on the "al qaeda" concept? I can't believe people think they're real(except for in a CIA created way) Even Tony Blair said they weren't. The only thing "al qaeda" demanded was for the infidels to get out of Saudi Arabia, so why would they attack us (fooling our military & Norad)realizing that bushwad would probably strike back? Also since Rumsfeld pulled us out of Saudi Arabia how can they still use "al qaeda" as a threat?

[savemefromdumbya]

92. it's an old art of controlling the masses by

propaganda/fake news/information. Goebbels style.

[Americus]

93. Curious that no OCT'ers EVER talk about such important points.

OCT'ers act as though they've never heard of things like government-sponsored propaganda, fake news, disinformation, "bought" media, hired-gun "columnists",
fake terrorist attacks, even so-called imbedded journalists.

Very odd.

[savemefromdumbya]

94. When they tried to stop an investigation of 9/11 it said it all

[DrDebug]

95. Picture / Video / Journal

In one picture:


In one video: (it is better if you watch the video first)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92675

In one journal: (for more detailed information)
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DrDebug

This ought to have been solved by the top anti-terrorism expert of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John O'Neill, therefore it is solved in his honor.

John O'Neill

February 6, 1952–September 11, 2001

[Rich Hunt]

97. It had something to do with drug wars

....and racial, ethnic and social "profiling" in America by the organized crime fascists with ties to international drug networks.

You have to go back and look at what preceded 9/11 domestically.

Bush paying the Afghans to not produce heroin, Mueller appointed to the FBI...and a lot of stuff, harassment of activist and Democrat Americans, particularly in Chicago and probably New York....the whole desperate operation failed miserably and I think it somehow precipitated the act of hateful rage that was 9/11.

Government, my ass. 9/11 was intended to hurt and drain the government, drain law enforcement, abuse law enforcement and anyone who might co-operate with them (crack dealing drying up, for example)...

Stop lying and saying it was "the government". Which government? State governments? Municipal ones? The federal government? If so, which agencies?

Can you even NAME some federal government agencies, especially those that might have been responsible?

Honestly, this lie that it was "the government" is a smokescreen for moneyed racist interests who hunt and attack families and people.

As if the wealthy and corporate NEVER hunted citizens and families and tried to expropriate their property, frame them for crimes, and violate their civil rights.

How much more historical revisionism am I going to see on DU?

9/11 was also preceded by what was known as the "anti-globalization" (perhaps a misnomer) movement, which targeted CORPORATIONS and not "the government". In fact, that same movement supported efforts to BOOST government agencies, the EPA, OSHA, laws against white collar crime or whatever.

Again....since WHEN do concerned citizens and activists work to undermine rather than STRENGTHEN their own government? Only Reaganite Republicans do such things.

[mirandapriestly]

98. Interesting...

but what used to be our government has become sort of what you describe...no one knows what to call it. Your crossed out swastika reminded me of a military building in California:

[DrDebug]

99. It is the government itself who wants to privatize

The Bush family is a family of fraud and scam and they like to get maximum benefit of their scams. Governmental agencies are subject to oversight from Congress, so they like to privatize it to allow for even more corruption and just leave incompetent governmental agencies.

That is what happened at 9/11. The sheer display of incompetence was just show, so they could move even more out of sight. But it was the government(s) (US, New York City, Saudi-Arabia, NATO, Europe etc.) who gave the green light to carry out the 9/11 and conspired to do this.

THE BUSH FAMILY - HARKEN ENERGY FRAUD

In his online column, "Behind the Scenes of the Beltway," (http://www.almartinraw.com), Al Martin has written that "you have to look at the entire Bush Family in this context -- as if the entire family ran a corporation called 'Frauds-R-Us.' Each member of the family, George Sr. , George Jr., Neil, Jeb, Prescott, Wally, etc., have their own specialty of fraud."

"George Jr.'s specialty was insurance and security fraud. Jeb's specialty was oil and gas fraud. Neil's specialty was real estate fraud. Prescott's specialty was banking fraud. Wally's specialty was securities fraud. And George Bush Sr.'s specialty? All of the above."

In this context, the infamous Harken Energy Fraud takes on new meaning as a multi- generational family of fraudsters, using high- level insider contacts, are able to manipulate stock prices for their own profiteering.

http://www.almartinraw.com/uri1.html

That is the biggest problem since 2000. People like Dick Cheney and George Bush came to power and they are only interested in fraud and scams and put their crownies in the top positions everywhere.

Who Killed John O'Neill

Who needs a plane?

An Updated MIHOP

Who did 9/11? A question we all want to know answers to. Meet the CIA of the 21st century.

AIG as Money Laundering Inc.

Marsh as Terrorism Inc for privatized terror like blowing up World Trade Centers

Kroll as the privatized CIA Inc.

al-Cokeda as the Drug dealers in the Flight school who are later called terrorists in the OCT

Learn how they all work together.

Learn how they make fortunes on 9/11 with insider trading.

Learn how sophisticated black ops already is.

In one video: (it is better if you watch the video first)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92675

In one journal: (for more detailed information)
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DrDebug

[mirandapriestly]

100. Kroll Revenues went up 35% in 2002

I wonder how much they're up by now.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/biztech/11/28/security.firm.reut/
I like your presentation.

[DrDebug]

101. I am very happy about the new CT

Kroll is doing great. They've benefited a lot from 9/11. Marsh as well even though they had some minor scandals, it was ironic that Terrorism Inc. swallowed Intelligence Inc. thanks to exceptional leadership of Paul Bremer. The Iraqi operation really was a Mission Accomplished for Terrorism Inc and Intelligence Inc.

Intelligence a subdivision of Terror. Congress would never have allowed that happen...

[Tenseiga]

102. What *I* believe

that this was a conspiracy, well, that is obvious, by the definition of a conspiracy.

who was involved? that's a bit more complicated.

About a year and a half ago, this was the BIG topic on one of the forums I belong to, and collectively ten of us went way deep down the rabbit hole. The disinformation was amazing, both in quality and quantity, and though collectively, we couldn't reach a consensus, here goes my conclusion.

This was conducted by an international cabal :tinfoilhat:. Can't figure out exactly who was involved, but there seems to be a huge international presence involved. Every time I turned up a new bit of information a new country and/or their official representatives popped up.

Who would benefit from the collapse of the US economy? A lot of people, the Chinese for one. The Russians maybe, to get back at us for their economic collapse that ended the Cold War. The Old Money Europeans, eager to assert their claim as rulers of the world... it goes on.

With the collapse of the US economy, there would be massive changes brought about in American society. Our regulated "free" market would be infringed upon, our rights would be infringed upon, and in the confusion, we just might lash out at the wrong people. Mission accomplished.

Did Bush know about the attacks beforehand? The famous look on his face looked a lot to me "I can't believe the motherfuckers actually carried it out." Could he have prevented it? Not without the infringements and inconveniences we've experienced SINCED the attacks (Patriot Act, airport security, etc etc). And then there's the Able Danger which has been more or less swept under the rug... not that it does any good to go over that after the fact, except as a historical lesson.

In conclusion, only the people who actually carried out the attacks know the who and why of it. And much like JFK, they have probably been protected by those who have the power to do so.