"Bush's comment..."
Astounding as it may seem, George W. Bush got something wrong.
"The Undersized Hole in the Pentagon"
Pentagon: concrete. Boeng 757: mostly thin aluminium. No contest. What about the hundreds of eye witnesses who had a close-up view of the plane just before it hit? Funny how CTs will repeat one comment by one witness if it supports their case but totally ignore hundreds that don't.
"Only a few images of Pentagon crash"
Why would there be more? Security cameras on a building point at the ground, not the sky.
"no debris found"
...apart from all the debris. With airline markings on it.
"Brief flashes of light "
...that strangely weren't noticed by anyone actually working in the towers, or the thousands of people watching the towers when the second plane hit.
"stuff attached to the bottom of plane"
...like what? Probably misinterpretation of some normal feature in a fuzzy video. What was this stuff supposed to be that was so big they couldn't fit it inside?
"People reporting bombs going off in the Towers"
...actually people (who had never heard a bomb in their lives) reporting loud noises near the towers after they had been hit. Tons of jet fuel; pieces falling off the buildings; no more to say.
"Building 7 just randomly falling when nothing touched it"
...apart that is from the huge gaping hole in the south side of it.
"United Airlines Flight 93"
What about it?
Let's not pretend you have an open mind on the matter. You believe this stuff because you want to, because it makes your humdrum life seem a little more exciting, not because of the evidence. The evidence is that a bunch of dedicated and clever extremists walked right through the totally complacent and unprepared security systems of the USA.
You want to do some research? Research Ahmad Shah Massood. He was the leader of the Northern Alliance and the US's natural ally in any attack on Afghanistan, and the best candidate for a post-invasion Afghan leader whio could unite the country. He was assassinated by suicide bomb the day before 9/11.
They knew exactly what the response would be. They planned for it.
There isn't any evidence that suggests 9/11 was an inside job.
1. They were able to fill books with nothing but speech flubs that Bush made, but this was when he said the exact right thing, blowing the door open on a huge government conspiracy? Come on, which one sounds more likely?
2.The Pentagon's walls are two feet thick steel-reinforced concrete. The plane made a hole which spanned engine to engine. Outside of those, the wings didn't have enough force do go all the way through, but photos show they did leave an imprint of themselves in the facade.
3. There are also photos of airplane debris that was found at the Pentagon. In addition, they found both black boxes. The CVR was too damaged to provide data, though.
4. I've watched the impact videos many times and I've never seen the flashes. There isn't anything attached to the bottom of the planes.
5. Just people hearing noises that sounded like explosions. If explosives had been detonated, the sound would have been captured by everyone who was recording for over a mile. Not a single one did. There would have also been some physical remnants left over for one of the thousands of clean-up workers to find. That didn't happen either.
6. WTC 7 was actually hit by large amounts of falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1. It then burned, unfought by firefighters, for over 8 hours. The fires eventually caused the building to collapse.
7. The hijacking started later on this flight than the other three. Using in-flight phones, the passengers called their families and learned about the attacks in New York and the Pentagon. They decided to revolt eventually causing the plane to crash in an empty field.
8. Such as?
Your list of "evidence" has been debunked, countless times, over the past decade.
Why people like you continue to rehash the same tired "evidence" which is based on nothing but heresy and photographs, as opposed to actual forensic data, science and math, is beyond me.
For instance:
Bush's comment about the first crash - yes, it was aired on TV the day of 9/11. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WATCHED IT, INCLUDING ME.
The Pentagon - so because you didn't see a photo of a plane, obviously it's a lie? Did you personally witness the sunrise this morning? Or see a photo of it? No? Well, how do you know the sun rose this morning?
Brief flashes - you mean like lens flare in photos?
Stuff on the bottom of the planes - Yeah. The landing gear. We know the landing gear was down on both planes before they struck the towers. This was confirmed by people on the ground who saw the planes before they hit, as well as the black boxes recovered from ground zero.
People reporting they heard bombs - no, what they claimed they heard was a sound like a bomb. What they were actually hearing was the sound of the bolts holding up the floors in the towers failing as the towers fell. Snapping metal makes a "Bang!" or "Boom" type noise that could be mistaken for a bomb going off. This would also explain why NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS FOUND AT GROUND ZERO.
Building 7 - collapsed due to having several million tons of flaming debris from the nearby towers falling on it.
United flight 93 - So...what's your point? This was the last plane to be hijacked, and by this time the WTC and Pentagon had been struck. The people onboard were receiving cellphone calls and concluded their plane was also part of the attack. That's why they fought back. We actually don't know for certain that their plane was heading to DC, although striking the White House or House Of Representatives would have fit with Al Qaeda's theme for the attack.
All of the "evidence" you've provided came out within weeks of 9/11 over a decade ago. Yet the conspiracy theorists have failed to produce any hard evidence to refute any of the facts reported in the government's 9/11 report. Not even a single memo, overheard conversation, email, etc, has been presented to show there was even any sort of knowledge of an attack on 9/11. No evidence of explosives from ground zero has been presented, and further stories about how the buildings were pre-rigged for demolition the day of 9/11 are so ludicrous that they don't even make for interesting speculative fiction.
In reality, a conspiracy by the US government to plan and carry out 9/11, or even just allow it to happen, would have involved so many people at the federal and local levels, it's statistically impossible that no one has come forward to say anything.
Remember when Bin Laden was killed? It wasn't even a month later that the Discovery Channel had a special about the attack using information from SEALS who had participated in the raid. Then 2 more wrote books about the attack, and another worked on Zero Dark Thirty. All before Bin Laden had even been dead for a year.
And you expect us to believe that tens of thousands of untrained civilians are keeping an even bigger secret?
@ PoohBear: You wrote: 'Stuff on the bottom of the planes - Yeah. The landing gear. We know the landing gear was down on both planes before they struck the towers. This was confirmed by people on the ground who saw the planes before they hit, as well as the black boxes recovered from ground zero.'
Actually, the aircraft that hit the WTC and Pentagon did not have their landing gear down. As they all approached their targets at well above landing speed, the gear being down would have made the airliners far more difficult to control, as the gear being down at such speeds would add a great deal of off center drag.
What some of the conspiracy whackjobs think that was unusual on the bottoms of the airliners are merely the associated nacelles that are a part of the wing spoilers and flap systems. Most big airliners have several such assemblies under each wing, running front to back.
The first 767 to hit the WTC hit at a speed of 404 knots (465 mph; 748 km/h). Boeing says that the gear down speed is in the vicinity of 145 knots.
None of this even hints at an "inside job". How about giving us ANY of the basics, such as who, what, when, where and why (with specifics) instead of just presenting a half-dozen alleged anomalies you cherry-picked for maximum effect while ignoring completely the mountains of evidence which says it was terrorists? To address this point-by-point:
1. Bush was not exactly known for clarity and public speaking. Verbal gaffe's and mis-statements were the mans forte. Taken in context we know what he meant. Taken out of context, like you have done it still proves nothing.
2. That "undersized hole" in the Pentagon was the EXIT HOLE, not the entry hole and of course that hole is going to be smaller. How/why people still don't get that boggles the mind!
3. Ever try to Google "Flight 77 debris". You will find hundreds of images of clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage which were found at the Pentagon. It just takes a minute and any half-way competent researcher would have done this already. Beyond that, the Flight Data Recorder was recovered at the site and its data precisely matches the data from the 6 radar sites that tracked Flight 77 from take-off to impact. In addition, the remains of all of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were recovered at the site, some still strapped in their seats. Personal belongings were recovered. The CVR was recovered and 136 witnesses are on record as saying they saw 77 hit the Pentagon (and more importantly, zero witnesses are on record as seeing anything else). But you ignore ALL of that overwhelmig and irrefutable evidence and whine that nobody took a picture at the moment of impact.
Seriously?
4. "Brief flashes"? Are you kidding me? Stuff attached to the bottom of the plane? What is this, 2006? Nobody, and I mean nobody still buys that crap. Alleged anomalies from carefully selected poor-quality images is not evidence. Tell me, how does one attack some large object to the bottom of a Boeing 767 where it will prevent the landing gear from being extended? Did they do that in mid-air? Why even bother? A 767 is a giant hollow tube. You can get 1,000 times more stuff on the inside than you can in some obvious pod that would give away the plot on the outside.
5. Nobody, and I mean nobody reported "bombs" going off in the Towers. A few people (about 10 from the more than 600 interviews I have collected) reported "explosions" but that is not the same thing as "bombs". People often describe loud noises as "sounded like an explosion" when there were no bombs involved. That is a limitation of the English language. Where is the video and audio evidence for such bombs? Unlike the Pentagon there were camera's everywhere. Where is the residue? Where is the blast-damaged metal? Why did the bomb-sniffing dogs find nothing? Why do you ignore all of that and instead depend entirely on the most unrelaible form of evidence there is?
6. How many buildings were destroyed in New York that morning? Did you say 3? You would be wrong. The correct answer is 10. I bet you didn't know that. 100 more were damaged even though they "were not hit by a plane". That is sort of what happens when 1,100 foot skyscrapers fall in a crowded city. They land on the things below, and that is exactly what happened to 7 World Trade Center. The burning North Tower fell on it, destroying about 1/3 of the front of the building and starting fires which raged out of control and unfought across multple floors for about 8 hours. The building was so unstable and starting to visibly lean over by being weakened from fire that the whole area was abandoned around 2:00pm. But you didn't know any of that, did you?
7. What about Flight 93? You state that it crashed. Yes, we know this. What is your point?
If you believe terrorists with a long history of attacking America and American interests radicalized 19 young men, then taught them the minimum they needed to know about hijacking commercial airliners and flying them into buildings to achieve their political goals then you have a very strong case. The plan is dead simple, quite cheap, requires few conspirators and not an enormous amount of special skill. The more complex a plan is, the more people are involved and the greater the risk of something going wrong, someone stumbling upon the plan or someone spilling the beans. How many people did it take to pull off your version?
There is a fundamental issue with the conspiracy theory in what ever form it takes. It will not hold up, it will never hold up. It is ill conceived and follows the conspiracy theory need to exist. It is hammered into shape and evidence is ignored if it does not fit the bill or it is altered and teased into shape with words.
For example, we honestly do know it was a plane at the Pentagon. If this bit of evidence was so wrong then the conspiracy theorist would have it in court and prove it. Instead, like all the rest of the conspiracy theorists, it lurks on the internet where it will NEVER be taken seriously.
Any person that says they investigate and willingly with an open mind and understanding a few basic will see that it is a terrorist attack pure and simple.
I believe it happened. Thousands of people witnessed the world trade center get bombarded with air planes and collapse. But it's possible that the government might have staged all the attacks and sacrificed all those lives so they could use it as an excuse to go to war and label anybody they want a terrorist.
The Sandy Hook school shooting did happen, but I'm sure it was done by a man hired by the government, so they could push for stronger gun laws afterwards.
If these things are happening and are being used as excuses to limit our rights, then the government is obviously up to something.
I've studied 9/11 for a long time. It's true that firefighters like Lou Cacchioli and John Schroeder heard massive explosions around WTC. They were only called to testify privately behind closed doors at the 9/11 Commission. Governments CAN be callous and treacherous. It doesn't matter which country your in.
“I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out. It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don’t agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible.”
----Fireman Lou Cacchioli
In the Nist report they say they never checked for explosives because it sounded silly to them, very scientific, personally i would prefer it if they covered all possibilities, fortunately others have and low and behold they found traces of nano thermite in the dust!!! take from that what you will
PS. Just as a future reference they should consider making airplane black boxes out of Saudi passport material
No. U R Simply simple minded.
What do you guys think? Cuz if you research lots of evidence put the idea down, but lots point to an "Inside Job"
Like:
- Bush's comment about seeing the First Plane crash into the First Tower on TV (when it never aired the first crash 'til the next day)
- The Undersized Hole in the Pentagon (Boeing 757 wouldnt fit in the hole)
-Only a few images of Pentagon crash and no debris found(We honestly dont know if its a plane)
- Brief flashes of light BEFORE the planes hit the towers and stuff attached to the bottom of plane
-People reporting bombs going off in the Towers
- Building 7 just randomly falling when nothing touched it
-United Airlines Flight 93 (plane heading toward Washington D.C. but the only plane that never hit its mark)
-And every other shred of "evidence" or "BS"
I dont know if I believe its true or not but I wouldnt be surprised if this conspiracy was real. I would like to hear others' thoughts
*On the Side Note (before I get crap that this isnt real and what happened, happened and thats the truth) I would rather die knowing the truth than a lie thats why I question this event. Would like to hear what you guys have to say though
