9-11 was an inside job

[error]

Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented. You have nothing but unproven allegations and a sheer lack of evidence to back them up.

[firsty]

Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented.

thats your point of view and i respect it. i dont think any harm would come from a more independent investigation. if it proves me wrong, i'd be thrilled. we dont need more enemies than we already have.

[mvpel]

there are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me. i dont know engineering.

There are no other buildings in the world that were built in quite the same way as the Twin Towers, and certainly none that have fallen or been taken down.  Their design was unique and highly innovative, with the exterior walls as load-bearing.  They were the first super-tall buildings to be constructed without masonry.  To compare their collapse with "how buildings fall" is absurd on its face.  Does these "scholars" suggest how they "should" have fallen when hit by airplanes, if not precisely as they did?  And on which of the unique design characteristics of the Twin Towers did they base their suggestions?

[firsty]

here is a good article to read from alternet:

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/41474/

Last week, Bush conceded that there were indeed secret CIA prisons, when finally announcing that the group of "key witnesses" to the 9/11 disaster would be moved to Guantanamo and for once afforded visits form the Red Cross and minimal legal representation. Some of them have been interrogated in secret for up to five years, with the Bush Administration left as the sole interpreter of what they revealed.

After five years of official deceit, it is not too difficult to believe that the isolation of those prisoners was done less for reasons of learning the truth about 9/11 and more in an effort to politically manage the narrative released to the public.

There is glaring evidence that the latter was the case. The 9/11 Commission report contains a disclaimer box on page 146, in which it is stated that the report's account of what happened on 9/11 was in considerable measure based on what those key witnesses allegedly told interrogators, and that the commissioners were not allowed to meet the witnesses or their interrogators.

so, even the 9/11 commission wasnt able to get a complete report.

the 9/11 commission report is expressly incomplete.

[error]

Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
    Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
    We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.

There you go misrepresenting the facts again. I've provided the actual text from page 146 of the 9/11 Commission report so that everyone can compare what it really said to what you claimed it said and see the difference for themselves.

[mvpel]

Here's one joker's attempt to attack the plane crash facts, as posted on DU:

[firsty]

Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
    Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
    We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.

There you go misrepresenting the facts again. I've provided the actual text from page 146 of the 9/11 Commission report so that everyone can compare what it really said to what you claimed it said and see the difference for themselves.

your inability to recognize the difference between me and the author of the article i linked to is all the evidence i need to dismiss your opinions as simplistic and facile.

cheers.

[error]

You weren't the author of the article? Oops, sorry, my mistake.

[lildog]

i havent versed myself in entire details because watching video of 9/11 causes flashback problems for me. the impact of the jets rocked my building. i saw the south tower collapse from a couple of blocks away. if you drop a large pen on my desk, i will duck every time.

So you?re willing to push theories you are unwilling to actually look into?

I?ll give you a name: Christopher Mozzillo

He was a member of my fraternity, Alpha Phi Delta.  Pledge master and all around good kid.  He was also a NY city fireman who died.

I was there in the city days after it happened.  At the time I was the fraternities national president.  He was one of three guys we lost that day.  I saw first hand the pit of rubble, the bodies and the damage.  I looked at countless photographs taken from those who were there including my own sister.  Some of which depicted bodies and body parts.

So you don?t need to tell me how horrible that day was.  But if you?re going to push out conspiracy theories and actually post them on message boards as if you are quoting fact then you better be prepared to point to the facts backing it up when questioned by people!

there are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me.

There are even MORE scholars stating it is consistent.  Remember these weren?t blocks falling over, they were buildings whose insides were mostly empty air.  How exactly would you expect them to fall?  So just because someone said so doesn?t make it so.

another is the eyewitness accounts of a lot of people who heard explosions on the scene.

The sites quoting people talking about explosions take them out of context.

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

That site has the quotes posted on many conspiracy sites AND their full context as well as the links as to where they came from.

another is the fact that the pentagon plane supposedly disintegrated on impact, including 2 steel and titanium engines which their manufacturer (rolls royce) has said could not disintegrate in any kind of heat created by rocket fuel. and, this disintegrated jet, which is now simply dust, then, i think 3 internal rings away, supposedly sent its landing gear (rubber and steel which is the only thing that didnt "disintegrate") into a concrete re-inforced wall, creating a 16-foot hole.

So where did the plane go?  There was a plane, there were people on it.  Heck I can give you the name of a guy who had a ticket for that flight but had to change it at the last minute because his mom was sick and having surgery.

the administration has lied about every single thing theyve done. congress is meaningless in this country. the democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans.

I agree but if you look at facts such as Clinton?s signing policies that prevented government agencies from sharing data, its clear both sides had a lot of covering their asses to do.  Doesn?t mean the government set this up, only that they were incompetent fools.

the biggest reason there are holes in the alternative theories behind 9/11 is because they had limited access to government documents. the govt supplied images to popular mechanics in order to "debunk" the "theories" but those images are not available to the public.

Search the web, I found a number of sites that have photos showing alternate views to building 7 which clearly show the damage it received after the towers fell.  But the conspiracy sites leave that photo out because it disproves what they want to push.  In fact that link I gave above has at least one such picture.

why were they running false flag drills on the mornings of 9/11 and 7/7?

How often do they run these drills in general?

why did NORAD fail?

Why did the system we develop that was intended to shoot down missiles from Russia fail every test?  It?s a government system, just about every thread on this forum is talking about a government program failing, suddenly you?re shocked about NORAD?

the 9/11 commission report does not answer these questions. until we have answers, the drive and desire and need of individuals in america to get to the truth, to have questions answered, is going to create speculation.

There?s the great thing about conspiracy theories? until every single question is answered to the satisfaction of the theorist the theory can remain.  This is what a lot of defense lawyers use to create reasonable doubt as well.  EVERY situation will have unanswered questions.  Heck, just look at the OJ case.  Do you think he?s innocent because the gloves didn?t fit?  I could give you a lot of theories on that case I got directly from Henry Lee when I worked at the Hospital Association in CT.  But that?s off the topic.

my only request to the government is that they give us something we can believe. if the govt wishes to reduce the nearly 40% of people in this country who believe that 9/11 was, to some degree, an inside job, they should answer and even work with the independent researchers, the scholars, the engineers and scientists who doubt some of the official details.

I still fail to see why what they?ve put out as the story is so hard to believe.  And the only data I?m aware of that they are actually preventing from going public is video from the pentagon which is after all our nation?s military nerve center so can you understand why video there would be held back?

[lildog]

also, the bbc has reported that at least four of the 19 hijackers are still alive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

this means either the govt named the wrong guys by mistaken identity, or that the individuals to whom they applied names simply had nothing to do with it.

the fbi acknowledges that the identity is in doubt.

i'm not satisfied with that answer. why should i be?

How many IDs did the hijackers have in their cars and rooms?  And you think identy theift is not reasonable here?  Why?

[lildog]

with publicly available information, we can prove operation northwoods, which has connections to the current administration, and goes to establish a pattern of military strategy that includes carrying out terrorist attacks in america in order to justify a war with another countyr.

I've seen and read the Northwoods document.  It's nothing that can't be faked with a common typewriter.  I've seen nothing to prove it real (although I would be interested in exploring this).

The question I have is, why, if this document were in fact real, wouldn't every major network and newspaper have put out a story about?

Instead it was first disclosed in a book put out by an ABC producer.  And the ONLY network to have anything about it was ABC... funny how that works.  Question, weren't they the ones who got caught with their pants down pushing a fake document about Bush?

And the only other sites I've seen even mention this document are 911 conspiracy sites.

But even assuming it were 100% real, showing the govenrment under JFK ran the ideas of a govenrment attack prove the 9-11 attack were actually pulled off by the government?  It doesn't, but if it's real it at least helps build your case.

[firsty]

to clarify, this is not MY case. i am not educated enough in engineering or military tactics etc to respond to these challenges. there are PLENTY of people who can respond directly to those challenges. nothing posted here contradicts the few items i said i subscribed to, other than simply promoting a different opinion.

neither set of theories (the govt's nor the "alternative" theories) is complete or without challenge. there is enough to contradict the govt's story and there is enough evidence that information supplied to the 9/11 commission was incomplete to demand a truly independent investigation.

i think you'll find that, in the coming months, the demand for that investigation will increase. i think it's worthwhile.

thats it.

[Russell Kanning]

The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.

The government says fires caused the collapses. That has never happened before or since.

[lildog]

The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.

The government says fires caused the collapses. That has never happened before or since.

747s have never crashed into sky scrapers before or since either.

Seriously, how many chances have the experts really have to see what would happen if burning jet fuel was to be poured through the channels of the inside of a skyriser?  What I read in popular mechanics makes as much sense as what the theorists put out so I fail to see how they can just say it's not true period.

[lildog]

One more thing to add... look at the video of the fire of the skyscraper in Madrid.  Theorists are using that as "proof" but personally I see it as proof of just the oposite.

It shows fire nearly brought that building down.  Add in additional damage from falling buildings or a plane and the extra heat from jet fuel.... and I think you see where I'm going.

Also I notice in that video the same falling "molten steel" I see on many conspiracy sites can be seen in the video falling from the building in madrid.