911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft:"

The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

 

[tigertim]

I suspect that they knew the attacks were coming. If I had to bet on it that's the way I'd go. However I try to never look at things as black and white or plain right or wrong and I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

Also I've done more than "trotting out theorist theories". I've given you my honest opinions on the evidence and tried hard to show reasonably why I think there needs to be a new and proper inquiry.

You already know which way I lean on this so why are you getting worked up about it? I'm not backing away from anything. That's my honest opinion, like it or not.

Yes I know which you lean.

But what some of us are trying to ascertain what you think really happened in detail. The realists simply beleive the OR.

So if I may can I throw some questions at you?

So you think that the US government knew the attacks were going to happen, you've said that.
Do you think they knew the specifics targets of the attacks ie the tower 1 & 2, Pentagon and wherever the last one was heading?
You think that 'someone" rigged up the 3 ( or all?) of the towers for demolition?
Do you think the Pentagon was rigged for demolition?
You think someone in the US government advised Larry Silverstein of the imminent attack? And then Larry thought it was a good opportunity to make some money out of it by insuring for terrorism?
If so why would the US government want to do Larry this big favour of making him some money?

And again I know you don't "know" but I just want to ascertain what you "think".

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Rubbish. You watched the AE doco. What motive do any of the experts in it have to be creating doubt? Who are you to say they're not genuinely concerned about the NIST report based soley on their knowledge?

The AE doco outlines many problems with NIST's WTC7 report.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/07/comm-j24.html

For starters. Search a bit and you can find a lot more. Better still watch the doco I posted.

I don't think motive is important. They believe the same as you. Doesn't make them right. They present an alternative that has not been robustly tested in the most respected science journals so why should it be taken seriously? If they are as credentialled and well regarded as the documentary makers would have us believe then they would be within their rights to publish their theories wouldn't they? It is one thing to question the procedures of the NIST. To suggest that there was a controlled demolition is another thing entirely. That it is a substantial leap from one to the other you continue to resist. It also implies a conspiracy that you refuse to accept would necessarily be wide ranging, I can't see how it wouldn't. The explosives contractors who rigged the buildings would be by far the weakest link. Yet no-one has come forward after all this time and all this speculation. It doesn't wash IMO, and I don't see the alternative. On doubt I was more speaking of the people on this thread and the publishers of the 911 conspiracy web than any particular "experts".

I have said it from the start, make your case without the conspiracy stuff. Without thermite of which there is no evidence, without discredited "volunteer" firefighters, without a demo expert who has only watched a video from one angle and wasn't there, without third hand conversations using the phrase "pull it", without non-existent states of martial law.

Bush was incompetent, Cheney was a crook, Rumsfield was a spook, Rice was a puppet. What inquiry is going to get close to any of these people? None. GM, Enron, Lehman Brothers......these people are virtually untouchable and none of them is the President of the USA. But when you go from arguing incompetence to complicitness I think you should labour under a greater burden of proof. That is just my opinion of course.

 

[AngryAnt]

I suspect that they knew the attacks were coming. If I had to bet on it that's the way I'd go. However I try to never look at things as black and white or plain right or wrong and I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

Who is they? Did Larry know before the lease was finalised and he paid up for the insurance? If he did know, how did he know? Who told him? Why would they tell him?

Or was he notified between July 2001 and September 2001? If so, same questions apply.

 

[Rosy]

The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

I'm a bit lost here. Can you please explain the relevance of that Disco?

 

[tigergollywog]

I'm a bit lost here. Can you please explain the relevance of that Disco?

I assume disco is alluding to knowledge of the engineering of the building, enabling someone to demolish it stylishly. Hit the right brace, and its like a game of jenga, or pick up sticks in the olden days.

Personally, I reckon 911 was, from Osama bin ladens perspective, a little bit like the hawks last premiership. They didnt really expect it, they put themselves in the game, things went exceptionally right and they cant get the grin off their faces.

 

[Rosy]

I assume disco is alluding to knowledge of the engineering of the building, enabling someone to demolish it stylishly. Hit the right brace, and its like a game of jenga, or pick up sticks in the olden days.

Ok thanks... I wondered if it meant the so called genuine experts questioning the official reports didn't have adequate information available to base their theories on.

 

[jb03]

I assume disco is alluding to knowledge of the engineering of the building, enabling someone to demolish it stylishly. Hit the right brace, and its like a game of jenga, or pick up sticks in the olden days.

Personally, I reckon 911 was, from Osama bin ladens perspective, a little bit like the hawks last premiership. They didnt really expect it, they put themselves in the game, things went exceptionally right and they cant get the grin off their faces.

Makes sense.

 

[Azza]

Personally, I reckon 911 was, from Osama bin ladens perspective, a little bit like the hawks last premiership. They didnt really expect it, they put themselves in the game, things went exceptionally right and they cant get the grin off their faces.

Yeah - all aided by a far dollop of American complacency.

 

[tigertim]

Just reading more conspiracy sites it occurred to me that whilst the theorists smirk and laugh at "sheeple" for foolishly beleiving the official response perpetuated by the media they fail to realise that they themselves are blindly beleiving every wild conspiracy put forth by the conspiracy websites!

And also whilst the theorist again smirks at the realist for beleiving all of these "coincidences" regarding 911 they themselves are beleiving far fetched conspiracy theories like holograms, no planes, air force planes, missiles being shot into the Pentagon, Marvin Bush doing security at wtc allowing them to be rigged to be detonated, Silverstein being let in on the attacks so he can make a buck, terrorists partying on with federal agents before the attacks, Jeb Bush collecting Attas flight records on sept 12 and escaping on a plane.

But Larry Silverstein insuring his towers ( which covers acts of terrorism) when he takes over the lease is an indication he was in on the plan!

Bizzare.

 

[bullus_hit]

Just reading more conspiracy sites it occurred to me that whilst the theorists smirk and laugh at "sheeple" for foolishly beleiving the official response perpetuated by the media they fail to realise that they themselves are blindly beleiving every wild conspiracy put forth by the conspiracy websites!

And also whilst the theorist again smirks at the realist for beleiving all of these "coincidences" regarding 911 they themselves are beleiving far fetched conspiracy theories like holograms, no planes, air force planes, missiles being shot into the Pentagon, Marvin Bush doing security at wtc allowing them to be rigged to be detonated, Silverstein being let in on the attacks so he can make a buck, terrorists partying on with federal agents before the attacks, Jeb Bush collecting Attas flight records on sept 12 and escaping on a plane.

But Larry Silverstein insuring his towers ( which covers acts of terrorism) when he takes over the lease is an indication he was in on the plan!

Bizzare.

The thing you're overlooking there Tim is that 9/11 theorists aren't in the business of promoting a belief system, they're actually there to exploit faultlines such as the distrust of governments and the need to exercise control over the very things they have no control over. It would be disingenious to assume that theorists are uneducated, crazed or even socially disenfranchised. They often have a gripe with authority, but this extends way beyond the said issue, and the conspiracy is often just a vehicle to unsettle the establishment.

If I asked you to tell me what the over-arching 9/11 conspiracy entailed, you wouldn't know where to start, that's because there is no universal consensus. It's more about being a part of an exclusive group and being privvy to sensitive and privileged information (as misguided as that may sound).

In light of all that, you have to ask how one goes about starving such organisations of oxygen and the simple answer to that is to simply ignore them. As harsh as that sounds, engaging in debate just legitimises their complaints and provides a veneer of legitimacy. It's kind of like getting Lord Monkton to argue with Tim Flannery, it simply turns into a small target slanging match.

 

[tigertim]

The thing you're overlooking there Tim is that 9/11 theorists aren't in the business of promoting a belief system, they're actually there to exploit faultlines such as the distrust of governments and the need to exercise control over the very things they have no control over. It would be disingenious to assume that theorists are uneducated, crazed or even socially disenfranchised. They often have a gripe with authority, but this extends way beyond the said issue, and the conspiracy is often just a vehicle to unsettle the establishment.

If I asked you to tell me what the over-arching 9/11 conspiracy entailed, you wouldn't know where to start, that's because there is no universal consensus. It's more about being a part of an exclusive group and being privvy to sensitive and privileged information (as misguided as that may sound).

In light of all that, you have to ask how one goes about starving such organisations of oxygen and the simple answer to that is to simply ignore them. As harsh as that sounds, engaging in debate just legitimises their complaints and provides a veneer of legitimacy. It's kind of like getting Lord Monkton to argue with Tim Flannery, it simply turns into a small target slanging match.

Well said.

 

[Disco08]

Yes I know which you lean.

But what some of us are trying to ascertain what you think really happened in detail. The realists simply beleive the OR.

So if I may can I throw some questions at you?

So you think that the US government knew the attacks were going to happen, you've said that.
Do you think they knew the specifics targets of the attacks ie the tower 1 & 2, Pentagon and wherever the last one was heading?
You think that 'someone" rigged up the 3 ( or all?) of the towers for demolition?
Do you think the Pentagon was rigged for demolition?
You think someone in the US government advised Larry Silverstein of the imminent attack? And then Larry thought it was a good opportunity to make some money out of it by insuring for terrorism?
If so why would the US government want to do Larry this big favour of making him some money?

And again I know you don't "know" but I just want to ascertain what you "think".

See to me this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Why ask these specific questions rather than actually examining the evidence and seeing where it leads? Obviously none of us can do that and that is the point of a proper independent investigation - examine the things that should have been scrutinised the first time around.

My answer to most of the questions above is a resounding "don't know". How can I? I firmly believe the US was aware of the attacks because there is so much evidence that they were warned repeatedly and there is evidence they were aware of the hijackers' movements. I also believe the bumbling response can't be explained away by incompetence when there was so much forewarning of what was about to take place.

I don't believe the Pentagon was demolished. There's no evidence to support that at all.

I don't have an opinion on the building collapses other than to say the official reports were obviously inadequate and a proper report needs to be carried out the way it would be after every other building collapse. Wherever multiple genuine experts make supported objections to the OR I feel they need to be properly tested.

Who is they? Did Larry know before the lease was finalised and he paid up for the insurance? If he did know, how did he know? Who told him? Why would they tell him?

Or was he notified between July 2001 and September 2001? If so, same questions apply.

See above. I'd rather just see the controlled demolition of WTC7 theory that so many experts support tested properly and go from there. Larry's actions could easily be coincidence but while so many experts question the NIST report and its methods those actions will continue to appear very convenient and suspicious.

I don't think motive is important. They believe the same as you. Doesn't make them right. They present an alternative that has not been robustly tested in the most respected science journals so why should it be taken seriously?

Because they're experts far more qualified than you or me. Their qualifications are as relevant as you can get to the princicples in question. They state specific reasoning that can and has been tested but until that is done officially it's dismissed as nutcase conspiracy theory. Your failure to give their opinion any credence at all is a classic example of exactly that.

If they are as credentialled and well regarded as the documentary makers would have us believe then they would be within their rights to publish their theories wouldn't they? It is one thing to question the procedures of the NIST. To suggest that there was a controlled demolition is another thing entirely. That it is a substantial leap from one to the other you continue to resist.

I don't resist anything. That's rich coming from you. How many questions of mine have you "resisted" lately?.

The burden of proving how a controlled demolition could have been achieved does not fall on the experts who assert that there is evidence of controlled demolition that needs to be tested properly. Just let science do its thing. Let a group of independent experts examine the evidence, test their hypotheses and come to a conclusion. That's what should have happened the first time. Worry about the implications of the evidence once you actually have a conclusion that has been reached properly.

The simplest way to stop all the speculation on WTC7 is to do this. What's possible reason can there be not to do that?

It also implies a conspiracy that you refuse to accept would necessarily be wide ranging, I can't see how it wouldn't. The explosives contractors who rigged the buildings would be by far the weakest link. Yet no-one has come forward after all this time and all this speculation. It doesn't wash IMO, and I don't see the alternative.

These are your assertions and are basically meaningless unless you have some way of proving them. You may be right but until there's a proper investigation of the evidence its a moot point.

I have said it from the start, make your case without the conspiracy stuff. Without thermite of which there is no evidence, without discredited "volunteer" firefighters, without a demo expert who has only watched a video from one angle and wasn't there, without third hand conversations using the phrase "pull it", without non-existent states of martial law.

This is a discussion forum on a footy website in the middle of summer. Every point I make isn't intended to be absolute proof or part of any theory. I put a lot of stuff up here just for discussion because they are interesting facts/rumours. I've tried to spell out my "case" a few times:

IMO the technical questions, as compelling as I think they are in some cases (such as WTC7), are not the greatest indication that something is beying covered up. Bush and Cheney's actions surrounding the events are far more suspicious and are most demanding of an investigation IMO.

You've been shown both and dismissed them routinely:

A multitude of specific warnings that al Qaeda terrorists were inside the US and that they were planning on flying hijacked planes into buildings such as the Pentagon and WTC. All completely ignored by the US administration.

Actions taken by the US administration to actually make it easer for such an attack to succeed.

Reactions on 9/11 which were completely anomalous that helped allow the attacks to succeed.

The complete and utter removal, suppression and destruction of vast sources of evidence.

The complete abandonment of standard procedure.

The resistance to investigate the murder of 3000 people.

The rigging of the inquiry that occurred due to immense public pressure.

The failure of the US administration to cooperate with the inquiry.

The absolute inadequacy of the OR.

The historical precedent for US administrations to contemplate faked attacks on its own citizens.

The historical precedent for the US to manipulate/create events as a platform for war.

The historical precedent for the US to use preemptive conflicts.

The documented massive gains to powerful individuals when the US is at war.

The documented anomalous trading on AA and UAL prior to 9/11.


None of this is proof of anything. But it is certainly demonstrated motive and evidence towards conspiracy that demands proper investiation.

BTW the martial law point stands. Unless of course you think people actually believed the government of Florida had been overthrown and the armed forces had taken complete control of the state. The compelling points are the extremely convenient dates that the orders were executed and the addition of the terrorism clause 1 business day prior to 9/11.

Bush was incompetent, Cheney was a crook, Rumsfield was a spook, Rice was a puppet. What inquiry is going to get close to any of these people? None. GM, Enron, Lehman Brothers......these people are virtually untouchable and none of them is the President of the USA. But when you go from arguing incompetence to complicitness I think you should labour under a greater burden of proof. That is just my opinion of course.

So their incompetence led to the deaths of 3000 people. They fixed the inquiry and destroyed as much evidence as they could and have never been held accountable but still you don't see the point of a proper investigation?

I'm a bit lost here. Can you please explain the relevance of that Disco?

The point of both the excerpts is to show how inadeqaute the NIST report was. These are crucial points which were ignored completely. No scientific exercise does that.

Personally, I reckon 911 was, from Osama bin ladens perspective, a little bit like the hawks last premiership. They didnt really expect it, they put themselves in the game, things went exceptionally right and they cant get the grin off their faces.

Makes sense.

Yeah - all aided by a far dollop of American complacency.

How do you all think things managed to go "exceptionally right"? Pure fortune? Complacency despite all the warnings the US received?

Just reading more conspiracy sites it occurred to me that whilst the theorists smirk and laugh at "sheeple" for foolishly beleiving the official response perpetuated by the media they fail to realise that they themselves are blindly beleiving every wild conspiracy put forth by the conspiracy websites!

And also whilst the theorist again smirks at the realist for beleiving all of these "coincidences" regarding 911 they themselves are beleiving far fetched conspiracy theories like holograms, no planes, air force planes, missiles being shot into the Pentagon, Marvin Bush doing security at wtc allowing them to be rigged to be detonated, Silverstein being let in on the attacks so he can make a buck, terrorists partying on with federal agents before the attacks, Jeb Bush collecting Attas flight records on sept 12 and escaping on a plane.

But Larry Silverstein insuring his towers ( which covers acts of terrorism) when he takes over the lease is an indication he was in on the plan!

Bizzare.

Yeah. Everyone that believes the commission was a sham believes the hologram theory. Great point Tim.

Anyone care to tell me what evidence has gone missing between the time the 9/11 commission and the NIST report on WTC7 were published and now? Baloo? KR?

 

[Baloo]

No *smile* idea. You're the crack pot harping on about destroyed evidence and evidence shipped to china.

 

[tigertim]

See to me this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Why ask these specific questions rather than actually examining the evidence and seeing where it leads? Obviously none of us can do that and that is the point of a proper independent investigation - examine the things that should have been scrutinised the first time around.

My answer to most of the questions above is a resounding "don't know". How can I? I firmly believe the US was aware of the attacks because there is so much evidence that they were warned repeatedly and there is evidence they were aware of the hijackers' movements. I also believe the bumbling response can't be explained away by incompetence when there was so much forewarning of what was about to take place.

I don't believe the Pentagon was demolished. There's no evidence to support that at all.

See above. I'd rather just see the controlled demolition of WTC7 theory that so many experts support tested properly and go from there. Larry's actions could easily be coincidence but while so many experts question the NIST report and its methods those actions will continue to appear very convenient and suspicious.

How do you all think things managed to go "exceptionally right"? Pure fortune? Complacency despite all the warnings the US received?

Yeah. Everyone that believes the commission was a sham believes the hologram theory. Great point Tim.

Ok, again you "don't know" but you certainly seem to be espousing a hell of a lot of conspiracy/cover up theories. So be it.

I love the way you intertwine the commission being a sham with hologram theories. Relevant? Anyway, don't get all bothered about it.

It was a throwaway line. ;D

 

[Disco08]

What gives you the impression I'm bothered Tim? Perhaps you're confusing me with Baloo? ;D

No *smile* idea. You're the crack pot harping on about destroyed evidence and evidence shipped to china.

No worries. This was a throw away line then?

Fact: Most don't see the point of another investigation because the evidence is no longer available

Don't worry. I won't harp on and on about it. I'd hate to look like a desperate Christian trying to defend ID.

 

[AngryAnt]

See above. I'd rather just see the controlled demolition of WTC7 theory that so many experts support tested properly and go from there. Larry's actions could easily be coincidence but while so many experts question the NIST report and its methods those actions will continue to appear very convenient and suspicious.

So, you say that all these things put together are "suspicious". What LS did or didn't do is completely irrelevant to what "experts" say about the NTIS report. When we actually examine the timelines any suggestion that LS was involved becomes improbable and pretty much infeasible.

So you say "yeah well I don't really know so we need an investigation". Piffle.

Now, what we do agree on is that there was some chatter around terrorist attacks that were not investigated/reported/handled properly. And that any investigation of the CIA and other intelligence agencies did or didn't do was hamstrung by definition. And yeah, western and other governments exploit terrorism and the perception of it to tighten control and restrict freedoms. Exactly as Chomsky described.

But you know what Disco? The more you and other "Truthers" bang on about the wackier side of the ledger, the less likely there will ever be any re-investigation because there is so much BS and noise about the issue that no policy maker will ever take you guys seriously. Anyone who ever was incompetent or negligent or whatever is laughing all the way to the bank while the Loose Change, Truther, 911 wackjobs movements continue to agitate about controlled demolitions/holograms/Larry Silverstone's grand arson-to-claim-the-insurance job. And it all feeds back into the climate of fear around terrorism/government.

You are the Black Helicopter wackjobs of the new millenium. Congratulations noobs - you are your own worst enemies.

 

[Disco08]

There's 2 basic sides to the truth movement. One group - such as the victims and experts - are specifically critical of the commission and NIST reports and believe events of this magnitude deserve better. That alone drives their call for a proper investigation. Whether that leads to incompetence or complicity is in the hands of the evidence. The second group are the conspiray theorists who use various theories rangeing from possibly plausible to downright wacky to assert the US most definitely were behind the attacks. TBH I doubt the second group even care about a proper investigation. You're also right that they're doing quite a bit of harm to the genuine truth movement but it's a free world. You can't stop them, you can only use common sense to determine who you're going to listen to and who you're going to ignore.

On Larry, you're missing my point. Larry's involvement - however suspicious or innocent - is irrelevant. Unless the cause of the collapse of any or all of the 3 buildings can be properly explained as controlled demolition his actions must be considered pure coincidence.

On piffle - piffle to you to. Larry built WTC7 in the 80's didn't he? Bush's brother Marv was also the part owner of Securacom (their cousin was CEO too) who had the WTC security contract at the time (and the contracts for UAL and Dulles airport conveniently enough). You can't tell me that - should these people have been responsible - they most certainly couldn't have hired a few controlled demolition teams to secretly rig the buildings (under a guise of legitimacy) and then have them all killed. The implied plan involved murdering thousands so a few more wouldn't have changed anything. Time was also not really a factor given Marv's company won that contract in '99.

"Some chatter" is a significant understatement.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/foreignwarnings.html

There was actually a better list compiled by Paul Thompson (911 complete timeline) using only mainstream media reports but that seems to have been disabled for the moment. It's featured in this doco though if you're interested.

Finally I think a few people here need to lighten up. As much as this is an extremely sensitive topic it's still a footy forum supposed to be for all us Tiges to have a friendly chat. If someone posts something erroneous or even downright bizarre just disprove it in a civilised manner. Most of the time I'm happy to join in the debunking of an unproven theory. As I've said the most damning evidence (not proof) for complicity lies in some of the undisputed facts.

 

[AngryAnt]

On Larry, you're missing my point. Larry's involvement - however suspicious or innocent - is irrelevant. Unless the cause of the collapse of any or all of the 3 buildings can be properly explained as controlled demolition his actions must be considered pure coincidence.

On piffle - piffle to you to. Larry built WTC7 in the 80's didn't he? Bush's brother Marv was also the part owner of Securacom (their cousin was CEO too) who had the WTC security contract at the time (and the contracts for UAL and Dulles airport conveniently enough). You can't tell me that - should these people have been responsible - they most certainly couldn't have hired a few controlled demolition teams to secretly rig the buildings (under a guise of legitimacy) and then have them all killed.

So Larry's involvement is irrelevant, and in the next paragraph he's responsible for hiring a demolition crew and then "had them all killed"? Oh sorry, he "could have" done that, you are not saying he actually did that. Beg pardon.

You need to decide if you want to be a "sensible - just want a new inquiry to clear up government incompetence/coverup" guy or a "Jews and Bush blew up everything ZOMG" kind of guy, because from where I sit you seem confused about which you are.

 

[Disco08]

I've stated a few times now that I support a proper investigation because I believe the first one was a sham and because I believe many of the US administration's actions need explaining. I've also said a few times that while expert opinion about controlled demolition is compelling it only supports the need for proper inquiries and doesn't prove anything. I re-stated pretty much that again this arvo.

So Larry's involvement is irrelevant, and in the next paragraph he's responsible for hiring a demolition crew and then "had them all killed"? Oh sorry, he "could have" done that, you are not saying he actually did that. Beg pardon.

Do you agree on either point in isolation?

While all the speculation would be disproved if proper inquiries found that controlled demolition certainly did not cause the collapse of any WTC building that shoudn't stop us discussing other facts should it?