Did the U.S. government have a hand in the 9/11 attacks?

There is no immoral act that this Administration isn't capable of.

If said immoral act involves any planning, know how, or coordination that goes beyond political slander, openly ignoring the law, and corruption (and is on a fairly large scale) it seems impossible that these buffoons could pull it off without being exposed.

They may have had a heads up it would occur and didn't warn the citizenry but actually pulling it off is impossible given their track record.

A spider monkey would make a better President if it was given yes no maybe buttons that it randomly pressed to make executive decisions.

 

Spider Monkey '08 !!!!!!

 

He's got my vote.

 

Bringing back a Zombie thread- but still a painfully current issue....

I have noticed recently that a lot of people in America have been coming out and saying 9/11 was an inside job, notable Willy Nelson and Jesse 'The Body' Venture. Anywhere else in the world this may be a bit strange but in america the line between Politics and sports and entertainment stars is very thin.

Anyways more interestingly than this is the fact theat they have been debating this a lot in Japan and even MP's in the Japanese parliment (Diet?)-

Just wondering from the Japanese perspective on this forum what the attitude towards it in your country is? all the stuff everyelse seems to be snowballing.

At this point I am finding it harder and harder to dismiss all this stuff as just conspiracys and stuff....

 

Case closed.

 

I think I am more likely to trust Willy Nelson than George Bush.

 

LOL, no doubt, same with the Bod. But still if Willie knows, what was his hand in the game?!?

 

I'd go to Willie Nelson for tax advice before asking him to prove his 9/11 theories.

I hear Loose Change has a 'final cut' out now, and that it's still filled with inaccuracies. Anyone seen it?

 

I hear the 9/11 comission report is also filled with inaccuracies, did you know they dont even mention building 7? And cant expliain the molten steel?

The 911 comission report says that the twin towers collapsed buy the pancake theory, but if you watch the towers come down, the fall at free fall speed- meaning that no resistance was met by any of the floors below.

The molten steel in the basment of the twin towers ( and building 7) is the smoking gun really- untill they can explain what force created all of this molten steel in the basment, 1000's of feet away from where the plane hit and where the fire was- I cant believe the official account of what happened,

Ihave seen the new Loose change- it seems good, not sure what the inaccuracies are in it?

 

This is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Chan ... #Criticism

There are even people from the 9/11 Truth Movement who have criticized Loose Change, but 9/11 conspiracy theorists are admittedly a very fragmented lot.

One thing that bothers me about Loose Change isn't so much the content as the origin: the project was actually created by one of the producers as a work of fiction, about a group of kids who discover a conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks. Somewhere along the line, he started to believe in the idea, and it evolved into a documentary.

Something a little weird about that. I wonder if the whole thing isn't some massive gag. If so, kudos to them.

I Googled "9/11 molten steel" and found tons of information, both for and against the presence of it and whether or not it's a "smoking gun."

 

The thing that worries me about the molten steel is that the head guy at NIST ( national institute of Science and Technologys) the guy who investigated and wrote the report of how the towers collapsed denies that it even exists, when there are NASA thermal imaging photographs taken from a satilite showing them-

heres is a video clip of the guy being asked about-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY&feature=related

Now I dont like top jump to assumptions- but I am from south London and have met enough lying scumbags in my time to know one when I see them-

BTW: just reading the wiki about loose change now.

 

Everyone knows that BASK did it.

But besides that, you may also want to read this, I found it interesting -

http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=2275

 

Here's the thing I don't get about the demolition theory: if the buildings were rigged to blow, then why do this elaborate song and dance number where you fly planes into them? Why not just pull the trigger and blow them up?

You would have the advantage of total surprise. Nobody would be paying any special attention, nobody would be filming the buildings, and you'd have far fewer reliable witnesses. Less fuel for pesky conspiracy theories.

Much simpler, really, and far more devastating since about 10 to 15 thousand people evacuated between the time the planes hit and the time the buildings fell down.

 

Interesting article although I must point out a few things:

His main argument for the 'Conspiracys' not being true were-

1) People not wanting to believe that this could be done to America by 19 Arabs, and basically the American publics blind patrotism leading to denial.

2) Arguing that the Bush administration are too incopentent to pull this off.

3) He also made the point that this was a diversion from the 'real' issues, going to war on a lie, no WMD's and Americans torturing people.

4) Finally, he didnt actually explain what about the 'conspiracys' is untrue, just kept saying it 'would have taken 1000's of people' and 'Bush is too much of a moron'- instead of explaining to me how a plane crash can melt steel?

So my answers would be-

1) Im not american, care very little about the patritoism of my own country- much less that of america. Being too Patriotic seems to me it is another thing for people to need to feel 'part of' like a football team or somthing and if the people are stupid and impressionable tends to lead to 'Gang mentalities' and detracts from the individual, and free thinking. But yeah that seems like a plausable argument to describe some peoples involvment and need to believe.

2) Yeah I agree Bush is stupid as fuck- but nobody in the 911 truth movement says bush did it realistically, no one knows who did it, but I wouldnt say it was Bush or if he even knows about it.

3) To me this is all part of the same issue- every bad thing that has happened since i.e Iraq, torture, patriots act have all been justified by 911- its definatly the same issue.

4) Yeah- go through the facts of the 'Conspiracy' theory and tell me why they are wrong- not just telling me it would have taken too many people- and for your information- In the 1940's a top secret project to create the Atomic Bomb ( the Manhatten project) was kept a secret from the president and at 1 one point that have 40,000 people working on it.

 

But how do you blame that one on Al Queda?

 

Wow. Scanning the recent posts it the SAME stuff in the beginning of the thread...demolition...molten steel....conspiracy theory...

Dead horse....meet foot.

The citing Willy Nelson and Jessie Ventura was a new one. I wouldn't lean too much on that one, though.

 

Fuck 911...whats next?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... OUPQJ7.DTL

 

Yeah sorry I am repeating myself- but dont you find this stuff disturbing?

I revived this post to find out about the japanese MP guy anyways- anyone in japan got any opinions?

 

Woah! your govenment is building concentration camps inside your country????

Damn- that doesnt sound good!

 

We have to have concetration camps. Everyone knows after the first great depression we stopped backing the dollar with gold and doing it with people. Mark of the beast aka "social security numbers". So now that people back the dollar in a depression the government pays debts with people, or labor from them, got to have a way to harvest their gold.

I am totally kidding I am not going off on my anti-government rants on here

 

This was published three years ago. Should have put to rest all conspiracy theories. Obviously it hasn't.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

 

1) There was melted steel- where did this force come from?

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

theres no way they were getting upto 800- 1500- thats the temprature it would burn in the engine, a controlled environment where it is being fed oxygen- not an open air fire like in the twin towers.

3) Even homeboy said that the jet fuel only burnt for 10 mins- so what was still burning after that? the stuff in the buildings- computers, office furniture, stationary and people. Can that stuff burn hot enough to melt steel?

4) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... hanics.htm

Popular mecanics article was cold faced properganda- they released a book and the foreword was even written by John 'Insane' McCain.

5) Regardless of what fire did or didnt do- you cannot do somthing as random as to crash planes into buildings and manage to get every support collum to fail at the exact same time- making the buildings fall down through theirself. Let alome 3 times and to one building that didnt even get hit by a plane.

Galileo's law of falling bodies states that falling objects follow the path of least resistance- not the most resistance, i.e all the building below.

Anyone else interested in any of this stuff check this site- should convince anyone in doubt-

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

If you're saying that the 9/11 Truth Movement (note the capitals, denoting a specific organization) isn't blaming Bush, I can't say for sure, but there are many many factions out there who say that Bush either knew about the attacks and "let them happen on purpose" (LIHOP) or "made them happen on purpose" (MIHOP).

The first part of Loose Change mentioning Operation Northwoods and the voice-changing technology touted by Colin Powell is pretty clear that the filmmakers are pointing the finger at the United States government.

 

I don't see how this would be difficult to find a "patsy" for it. After all, the WTC was the target of terrorist activity previously.

Does anyone have an answer to my question, though? If the buildings were rigged to blow up, why not just blow them up?

 

I'm skipping around only reading bits & pieces of this fascinating rehash, but I always figured that they were at least aware, and basically took advantage of a situation, setting up the explosives (which I am not altogether convinced of) would only ensure the success of the operation.
And I would imagine that there is some truth in the theory that updating the Towers with the required technology (future or present[past in this case]) would have been insanely expensive, and possibly convinced otherwise uninterested parties to see the financial reasonings behind the whole thing.

maybe...