Want the proof that 9/11 was an inside job?
Do you think it's possible our government could have aided, or even carried out the attacks of September 11th? Do you think that any suggestion of such a thing is ridiculous "conspiracy theory?" If so, I welcome you to read on, and even more, feel free to question me or raise any doubts you might have, or evidence you've found which contradicts
( Read more... )
Comments 19
One thing I've never read on any of the sites about how 9/11 was an "inside" job was how often the military runs these "war games". I think that would be a pretty important factor. If they run them once a week, or even once a month, it would make it a little less important.
For the simple fact that due to the drills taking place that day, if the 9/11 attacks had occured on ANY DAY OTHER THAN SEPTEMBER 11th 2001, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to succeed.
Easy for us to say NOW, after the attacks had occured. Until 9/11, every hijacking of an airliner consisted of some arabs taking a plane to some airport and holding the people hostage on the tarmac until they got what they wanted. If the government wasn't behind the attacks, and they knew they were going on, the odds of them scrambling fighters to attack the planes would be pretty ( ... )
Reply
The government was aware of the possibility of using planes as weapons well before 9/11. They even prepared and ran drills for this exact contingency at the pentagon in 2000. That's why I say... one piece of evidence, sure, it can go either way, but when you stack everything together, it paints a fairly obvious picture. Reference either of the two documentaries I link to. Loose Change is probably a little bit better for this, as it deals soley with 9/11, and spells everything out in a pretty no-nonsense format.
Reply
Still, as always use your own discretion, but at the same time, make sure you've watched some of this stuff and done a little research before you make claims that it's a "wild" conspiracy theory (not saying you are, but I've seen that a lot - apparent "experts" who are really just shooting off at the mouth).
Reply
For the simple fact that due to the drills taking place that day, if the 9/11 attacks had occured on ANY DAY OTHER THAN SEPTEMBER 11th 2001, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to succeed.
Let's temporarily grant your assumption (I'm going to challenge it in a moment though). Even if your assumption is right, this certainly isn't "irrefutable proof" that the government was complicit in the events of that day. You've done nothing to rule out the possibility that the timing was simply coincidental. Perhaps the highjackers got very, very, very lucky.
Sure, this would be quite a coincidence. But it's not impossible. And I think that if you're going to start throwing around heavy accusations - that the federal government caused or willfully allowed the deaths of thousands of its own citizens - then you need a better argument than "coincidences never happen!"
Reply
If they would have occured on any other day, there would be no confusion as to whether the hijackings were real or not, and there would have been plenty of fighter jets ready to scramble to defend our skies.
You assume that the attacks only succeeded because there was "confusion as to whether [they] were real or not" and because there were not "plenty of fighter jets ready to scramble". Both of these are wrong.
Start with the second. How many fighter planes does it take to shoot down a defenseless lumbering commercial jet? Exactly 1. Unless your claim is that every last fighter jet stationed on the eastern seaboard was away in Alaska, then your argument fails. And if that is your claim, you are lying, so your argument also fails.
As to the alleged confusion. Look at the timeline here. Flight 11, the first plane taken over, was highjacked at 8:13am. By 8:24, Boston flight controllers had heard terrorists speaking over the radio. There is no suggestion ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Of course, "the right locations" are entirely dependent upon the highjacked planes' targets, which no one knew. Even if every last Air Force fight had been waiting in its assigned position, they couldn't possibly have done anything until after being given authorization to shoot down the planes, which wasn't possible in the first 50 minutes.
Why would they have to "divert?" at all, both planes were going to the same place
Draw a triangle. Any two points share a line (a heading). Yet, coming from the third point, one must draw different lines to each of the other two points.
"This, of course, has nothing to do with training exercises."
Oh, OF COURSE. How could I have been so stupid. ...And you are basing this expert opinion on what, now?I'm basing it upon inordinately simple logic. Three planes had been confirmed highjacked. Two had already hit ( ... )
Reply
Yes, WHY? And again, WHY? When it is clear that they should have been given shoot down orders by that point. These questions remain completely unanswered - not even addressed.
"At 9:37, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So, only 13 minutes passed between the time anyone realized a plane was headed for Washington and the time of impact. And in that time, still, no one had given shoot-down orders."
We're talking about possibly the most controlled airspace in the entire country. WHY was it not protected that morning when two attacks on high profile targets had already occured, and would have been obvious to anyone so much as watching the news, well before hand? I guess they just weren't being "pro-active" enough...
Reply
Eddie makes a good point though, it's not "impossible" that the attacks could have been carried out on another day. You have to at least acknowledge the possibility that it is just a coincidence, though I'm not saying that's very realistic. Like Eddie said a lot of it depends on how routine such a maneuver is. But, like everything else involving the military we probably won't be allowed to find that out ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Uhm, yeah, I'm well aware of that and it was pretty much my point. I was saying that there are structural engineers supporting both sides of the argument. To me at least, there does not seem to be an expert consensus on this issue, and so to you and me (people who are not structural engineers) it is difficult to judge the superiority of either side.
"Actually find me a reference where someone with good credentials backs the official story (besides articles in Popular Mechanics who's editor Benjamin Chertoff, by the way, is the cousin of the Secretary of Homeland Security..."I'll ignore that ad hominem argument, of which I was already aware, for the moment (attacking the man instead of finding logical problems with his argument) and will attempt to give you at least a couple of other expert opinions ( ... )
Reply
30 minutes? That's "prolonged heating" ?
I would also add here that none of these other pancake theorists seem to have an explanation for the sulfide residue that was found on the wreckage. Stephen Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University suggests that sulfide residue is a byproduct of a thermite detonation.
Reply
Leave a comment