1 of 5
1
Those Who Believe 9/11 was an “Inside Job”...
Posted: 07 July 2007 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

To those who believe the events of 9/11 were an “Inside Job”, could you please explain two things: 


1.)  Who exactly was responsible for planning and carrying out the attack?

2.)  Why did they do it?


And do you also believe any of the following 15 events were also “Inside Jobs”? 

1.)  Was the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis an “Inside Job”?

2.)  Was the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 an “Inside Job”?

3.)  Was the bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Lebanon an “Inside Job”?

4.)  Was the TWA hijacking in 1985 an “Inside Job”?

5.)  Was the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 and “Inside Job”?

6.)  Were the shootings outside CIA Headquarters in 1993 an “Inside Job”?

7.)  Was the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 an “Inside Job”?

8.)  Was the attempted assassination of (the first) President Bush in 1993 an “Inside Job”?

9.)  Was the attack on U.S. Military Headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995 an “Inside Job”?

10.)  Was the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 an “Inside Job”?

11.)  Was the Empire State Building sniper shootings in 1997 an “Inside Job”?

12.)  Was the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998 an “Inside Job”?

13.)  Was the attack on U.S.S. Cole in 2000 an “Inside Job”?

14.)  Were the Beltway sniper shootings in 2002 an “Inside Job?”

15.)  Was the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 an “Inside Job”?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14

Very pertinent questions, Rocinante, but you will have to realize that there are some people who will never be convinced. After all, conspiracy theories are, in the limit, immune to any sort of evidentiary support. The more evidence you produce to show the falsity of the theory, the more they will assert that the conspiracy was perfect.

As such, conspiracy theories assume a sort of human perfection which does not exist in real life. SNAFU is more to be expected than conspiracy ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

I know they can never be convinced.  But it is fun reading their strained rationalizations as they bend over backwards trying to avoid the obvious truth. 

These conspiracy theorists remind me of the “Moon Landing Was Faked” conspiracy theorists.  They have so much in common:  A sinister network within the government, working in dimly lit smoke-filled back rooms, concoct a plan so outrageously complex - yet pull off everything without a hitch - and fool all the experts on the planet, yet a few amateurs spot one tiny little item that they cannot explain.  And from that they extrapolate a massive conspiracy straight out of the mind of a James Bond super villain.  I fear that these people drive on the same streets I do!

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19

What I see in this conspiracy theories is a uncontrovertible proof of mistakes (which, I think, is not a weird think: it’s impossible to be ready to manage such thing in order) and for me, it’s also clear that the authority didn’t publish the exact sequence of causes and effects between the plane crash and the building fall ( I think in a lot of reason to do this). As far I see, none of them support the idea of a ‘inner job’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I’ve avoided posting on either of the 9/11 threads until now because I think the whole conspiracy theory idea is nonsense.

Tall buildings such as these are carefully designed by architects and engineers with structure that will support the weight of itself and the furnishings and with a moderate safety factor for high winds, etc.  However, the weight of the materials is kept to a minimum so they don’t have to be heavier to support themselves and also to minimize cost of construction.

The vertical load is transferred directly down, almost exclusively, with little transfer of stress across the building.  If the middle of one side of the building is destroyed everything is thrown out of balance. Compression stresses are exacerbated by torsional ones on the surviving structure.  Rivets (designed to withstand shear, but not torsion) that transfer stress from one beam to the adjacent one have been bent and damaged.  Now you add the high temperature of the fire, and all it takes is for a few of the rivets to fail.  When a part of the building drops, the remaining structure is even more highly stressed.  As soon the safety factor is exceeded the building will collapse.

I see no need for any additional destructive agent to be postulated.

Now, if you claimed, instead, that the administration had word that Islamic extremists were planning an attack somewhere and did not work to find and block it so they could use it as an excuse to impose additional restrictions and controls on the citizenry by the Patriot Act, and as a justification to invade the middle-east in Operation Iraqi Liberty (OIL), I would have a much harder time disbelieving you.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I’ve avoided posting on either of the 9/11 thread because I think the whole conspiracy concept is silly. 

This kind of building is carefully designed by architects and engineers for minimum structure that can support the weight of itself and the furnishings and to minimize construction costs, with only a moderate safety factor for such things as high winds.  The weight above is mainly supported by the structure directly below it without too much stress transfer across the building to the other load bearing beams.  When the structure is thrown out of balance by one side being destroyed, the whole building becomes unstable.  All it takes is for a few of the large rivets that are now under much higher stress to lose a bit of integrity from the heat and fail.  This allows one or two additional beams to fall or at least to stop being load bearing.  The additional load is transferred to the remaining structure which is already stressed at a much higher level than it was designed for.  As soon as the safety factor is exceeded the building will begin to collapse and continue until it’s rubble.  I don’t see the need for assuming any additional destructive factors. 

Now, if you want to claim that the administration knew that Islamic extremists were going to do something but didn’t pursue efforts to block whatever it was so they would have an excuse to institute controls and restrictions on the citizenry like the Patriot Act, and justification to institute Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), then I might have a harder time disbelieving you. 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Occam - 07 July 2007 09:44 PM

Now, if you want to claim that the administration knew that Islamic extremists were going to do something but didn’t pursue efforts to block whatever it was so they would have an excuse to institute controls and restrictions on the citizenry like the Patriot Act, and justification to institute Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), then I might have a harder time disbelieving you. 

Occam

Obviously, ever since “Operation Bojinka” was uncovered, some people within positions of authority knew of the possibility of using planes as weapons.  Heck, one guy even crashed a plane into the White House back in 1994 (with the plane being stolen on Sept. 11th—conspiracy theorist, where are you on that one?!)

And the level of “chatter” and other bits of intel pointed to something going down some where, some place some how.  But since no one outside the hijackers—with some reports suggesting that not all the hijackers (outside the pilots) knew everything—then what would you suggest the government have done? 

I have my criticisms of Bush and his administration on many, many issues.  But speaking rationally, what could Bush have done before the attacks in order to stop them? 

I would submit that any effort that would have reasonably stood a chance of preventing the 9/11 attacks would have been roundly criticized by the very people who claim Bush didn’t do enough to stop the attacks. 

Ban all commercial flights?  And for how long?  That would never fly (pardon the pun.) 

Put Air Marshals on all flights?  Not only are there not enough Marshals, the screams of “Police State” would be deafening.

Institute racial profiling at airports targeting Middle Eastern Men between the ages of 18 and 35?  The screams of outrage would still be going on to this day had that happened pre-9/11. 

Arm all airline pilots pre-9/11?  People are still pissed that some pilots can carry firearms post-9/11. 

Place anti-aircraft missiles on buildings in New York?  Are you kidding? 

Launch a preemptive military strike on Afghanistan?  Yeah, that would have went over real well! 

Kick out every foreigner in the United States who didn’t have a valid Visa or Green Card?  Have you been watching the news lately about the whole immigration debate?  Does anyone honestly think that would have been tolerated even pre-9/11?

Track down the people who carried it out before they did it?  How?  Some were in this country legally.  And those who weren’t were in among millions of others who weren’t.  Plus, there simply isn’t enough government agents to do it.  And those that do that sort of thing aren’t psychic to the point where they could foresee the future and read the minds of the hijackers. 

So, putting aside all the legitimate criticisms of Bush, the war, and all that, what could Bush or anyone in government have done that would have prevented the attacks?  Sadly, I don’t think there may have been anything short of a police state being imposed - which no one wants.  I’m reminded of a quote about the Kennedy assassination:  “A nation could not except a giant being slain by a twisted dwarf, and felt that only a conspiracy of giant proportions could possibly fit the scope of the tragedy that had altered history’s course.”  I think the same type of thinking is causing otherwise intelligent people to fall for all sorts of crazy conspiracies.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

If the Bush administration was aware of terrorist threats from Al Qaeda (and they were- see presidential memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike America” and the previous World Trade attack), then they should have looked at their own intelligence, analyzed it, and acted upon it.  That would suffice for me.

They didn’t have to do a dragnet because the suspects were already on their radar.  I don’t know the details, but it’s common knowledge at this point that several of the hijackers were flagged by either the FBI or CIA, and yet they were still allowed to do flight school and roam around with a free pass.  People could say it’s “monday morning quarterbacking”, but those are simple ways that our government let us down.  It would be a shame to forget that this could have been prevented if the intelligence community simply communicated between each other about potential threats.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2007 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
ticktock - 07 July 2007 11:41 PM

They didn’t have to do a dragnet because the suspects were already on their radar.  I don’t know the details, but it’s common knowledge at this point that several of the hijackers were flagged by either the FBI or CIA, and yet they were still allowed to do flight school and roam around with a free pass.  People could say it’s “monday morning quarterbacking”, but those are simple ways that our government let us down.  It would be a shame to forget that this could have been prevented if the intelligence community simply communicated between each other about potential threats.

I agree.  I’m not saying that certain aspects to government didn’t fail in certain areas.  Of course their were failures.  On September 11th, the FBI and the CIA were prevented from working together sharing information.  That in itself was one of the failures. 

A type of fallacy I see committed by many people is what I call the “Government As God Fallacy.”  Many people attribute magic, god-like powers to the government.  The government is comprised of human beings.  They have no special magical powers that we mere mortals lack or don’t know about.  Sometimes government law-enforcement agencies catch the bad guys before they strike.  Sometimes they don’t.  Granted, when they don’t it is only reasonable to ask if they could have done better or even if they were negligent in their duties and make reasonable changes where necessary.  But we live in a (somewhat) free and open society.  And because of that, bad guys (foreign and domestic) will always be able to get away with some bad things now and then.  That’s an unfortunate fact and one of the prices we pay for living in freedom.  And every infringement by government into our liberties is met with justified skepticism and outrage (as it should be.)  Yet when something like 9/11 happened, many of the same skeptical and outraged people turn right around and ask the government (as if it were some sort of god) why it didn’t protect them.  Granted, on legitimate areas of negligence by those charged with enforcing laws, then heads should roll.       

But my point is that, even if the flagged hijackers were arrested before the attacks, the screams of “racism” would be coming from some of the same people who are currently saying the government didn’t do enough.  Can you imagine if, on September 10th, 2001 the FBI arrested all the yet-to-be hijackers, held a press conference telling the nation these 19 men were going to hijack airliners, and fly them into the WTC towers, completely destroying them, and into the Pentagon and the White House?  Most people would have laughed it off saying it could never have happened and that the FBI were overzealous racists, and that the rights of the arrested men were being violated and they should be set free immediately because they hadn’t done anything wrong.  After all, these same people would say, “Since when is it illegal to attend flight school while being Muslim?”  Even to this day, when some law enforcement agency somewhere arrests Muslims in the United States charging them with planning to carry out terrorist attacks, I hear cries of “racism.”  I hear complaints that, “These are just amateurs who are too bumbling to actually carry out attacks,” or, “They are only arresting these people to drum up support for Bush or keep Americans fearful of terrorism.” 

It’s almost as if some people just like to complain for the sake of complaining and will never be happy.  If law enforcement arrests them before an attack, it’s racism and a violation of the suspects’ rights; if law enforcement doesn’t arrest them, and they commit a crime, then people are just as pissed over that.  They are damned if they do; damned if they don’t.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2007 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

I think a lot of criticism of government in their effort or lack of effort to deal with so-called terrorist activity is a direct result of the way that this administration has dealt with terrorism since they began using the term to defend their actions.

They coined the “War on Terror”.  They have used it to cover their tracks, to justify their preemptive strikes, the patriot act, wire tapping and on and on.  The real issue is one of credibility.  They have none left.  They destroyed it by side stepping oversight, considering themselves above the law, and doing pretty much as they please, while “leaking” information harmful to whomever gets in their way.

Their despicable behavior has drawn the ire of many.  One of the primary reasons it is difficult to counter the accusations of conspiracy theorists is that this administration has set the precedent for suspicious behavior.

They have done things our countries founders did not imagine one elected to such a high office would dare.  They have attempted to re-write our constitution and bill of rights to the benefit of the executive branch.  They have openly discussed a permanent Republican stranglehold on our government.

All these actions and many more have generated furtile ground for conspiracy theories and criticism of government handling of anything they do.

While many of the accusations have no substance, they gain acceptance sometimes just as a recourse to what is considered a corrupt and out of control administration.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2007 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

Charles,

While you do make many good points, I’m not talking about any of that.  I’m talking specifically about the days before 9/11. 

Thought Experiment Time:  Put yourself in a time machine, go back in time to August 6, 2001 with yourself as President of the United States.  You get a briefing on your desk (along with god-only-knows how many others) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside America.”  You don’t know it yet, but you’ve got 36 days to do something.  What are you going to do that has a legitimate chance of stopping 9/11 from taking place that will not infringe on the rights and liberties of American citizens and will not cause huge outcries over what you do?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2007 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01
Rocinante - 10 July 2007 11:52 AM

Charles,

While you do make many good points, I’m not talking about any of that.  I’m talking specifically about the days before 9/11. 

Thought Experiment Time:  Put yourself in a time machine, go back in time to August 6, 2001 with yourself as President of the United States.  You get a briefing on your desk (along with god-only-knows how many others) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside America.”  You don’t know it yet, but you’ve got 36 days to do something.  What are you going to do that has a legitimate chance of stopping 9/11 from taking place that will not infringe on the rights and liberties of American citizens and will not cause huge outcries over what you do?

I honestly don’t know, nor would I be in a position to know what might have been possible to do in response to such a threat.  I don’t have any intimate knowledge of what resources or information the government had at that time to bring to bear on the problem.  I suspect none of us will ever know what could have been done.

However, the Bush Administration has made claims, since 9/11, that they now do have the power to stop such activities.  Not only that, but they brag about how there has not been another attack on US soil since 9/11.

How is it that they could have done nothing before 9/11, and now, all of a sudden, they have stopped it cold?

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2007 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

You’re missing my point.  What they are doing now, if they did it pre-9/11 and actually stopped the attacks, they would have been roundly criticized and many people wouldn’t have believed the terrorist threat was real at all - just as is happening now!

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to defend any violations of our Constitutional Rights.  I’m just pointing out and ugly truth about fighting terrorism.  There are no easy answers.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2007 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

I think I get your point very well. 

I am not suggesting that the way people use events or reaction to events to make political hay are justified in doing so.

However, I am also not willing to concede that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent or inhibit the 9/11 terrorist attack, short of infringement on our constitutional or civil rights.

Certainly some reaction would have been warranted based on the warnings they received.  Considering the lack of evidence that they even gave the warnings any credible attention, they deserve some criticism.

As for what kind of response would have been appropriate, and is appropriate today, I would suggest that there are many valid suggestions that have been brought forward, none of them full proof.  The simple fact that our intelligence agencies were not sharing information, and that state, local police and fire agencies were using communication equipment that did not share the same frequencies.

Above all, our foreign policies could be altered to re-establish the US as a symbol of not simply power, but a true supporter of Human Rights and Democracy.  This above all is our best defense against terrorism.  We cannot expect to be invulnerable to terrorist attack if we are acting like terrorists ourselves.

I concede that terrorist activity cannot be stamped out completely.  No defense is invulnerable to the acts of people intent to kill without consideration for their own survival.

However, the threat from terrorism has been greatly exaggerated post 9/11.  The continual reminders of the 9/11 event serve only to generate fear and provoke support for radical foreign policy.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

Hi guys.

Your arguments are logical and rational but it really just seems like you haven’t taken a look at all of the evidence available.

Explain to me how WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into it’s footprint while it was not struck by a plane.  And why did BBC report on its collapse before it actually came down?  Why did Larry Silverstein, the building’s owner, go on film admit to “pulling” the building down?  Why was there molten steel at the bottom of the wreckage?

There are answers to these questions, but do you have them?

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 5
1
 
‹‹ iS THIS still a democracy?      Madmen ››