Was the US government behind the 9/11 attack?

Was the US government behind the 9/11 attack?

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 30th, 2006, 12:01 am #1

Ridiculous, ofcourse. Or is it? Recently responsible people have begun asking good questions about what happen 9/11 and when you study the events of that day a lot of things just don't add up- unless that is, you except the notion that our government not only knew 9/11 was going to happen, but actually helped it happen!

Lets just consider the attack on the Pentagon:
Air Force Norad pilots say that Norad was ordered in an unusual state of 'stand-down' that day and fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base that are suppose to protect Washington were kept on the ground right through the attack. Eye-witnesses report that the plane which hit the pentagon was not a 767 like the government claims but a much smaller plane and experienced pilots say it would have been impossible for a 767 to make the maneuvers this plane did before it hit the building. And how convenient that the plane happen to hit the one part of the building that was empty for renovation at the time. And that the resulting explosion was more characteristic of plastic explosives than burning jet fuel. That no parts of a 767 were ever found at the site. That reporters were never allow to see the wreckage or ask Pentagon employees any questions. And that right after the crash the FBI took all outside surveillance tapes from every store in the area and not one of these tapes has ever been released. What are they hiding?

There are many more strange facts about 9/11 but this is enough to ponder for now.

So why would the US government permit and even aid an attack on it's own country? Because it was necessary to have a "Peal Harbor" like event in order to hype the public up for a long hard war against the middle east, which is only part of an even bigger plan. More on this later.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 30th, 2006, 2:36 am #2

Yes, I saw a documentary on this very subject, which covered the details you listed, and suspicious things re the attacks on WTC, and noted that 26 members of the bid Laden family were flown out of the U.S. following the attacks -- at a time when all air traffic was supposedly grounded (some of this was covered in Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" and by Alex Jones (www.infowars.com and prisonplanet.com) ). I'm sure there is much that the American public does not know . . and won't see on any of the mainstream news outlets.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 30th, 2006, 5:28 am #3

Well I think the fact that the administration has totally stonewalled any investigation of 9/11 has to make you wonder. Like what possible motive is there in withholding the pentagon videos- other than the fact they would contradict the government's version of the events.

Take a good look at this photo. It is a frame of a video tape made at the beginning of the collapse of the North WTC tower.



It's important to remember that this was long after the crash- and at a time the fuel fire had nearly gone out- and yet look at the areas circled in this photo- experts say these are demolition charges going off to cut the steel support beams. (Its even more obvious on the moving tape). It was reported that in the weeks before 9/11 employees working at night and weekends saw mysterious men working in the WTC and no one knew what they were doing.

And remember too that building #7 also collapsed- much like the towers- even though it was not hit at all. How can this be explained?
Reply
Like
Share

Jafo
Jafo

March 31st, 2006, 2:54 am #4

As someone who has spent much of his adult life (what am I saying, I was a geek even as a kid, my whole life) studying physics the picture has a very simple explanation. The reason the flames and debris is moving out with a large degree of force is the amount of air being compressed by the falling building. As the massive amount of fairly solid material falls, the air under it has to go some place. That place is out the (mostly) ornamental walls and windows.

For a good demonstration of this effect, watch the Mythbusters episode where they examine the jumping in a falling elevator myth. They examined how a woman was able to survive an elevator plunge when an airplane hit the Empire State building. The reason (as most civil engineering students are asked to prove) is the air that is under the elevator car can not get out of the shaft quick enough to allow a true free fall.

Living in Oklahoma and working on the Murrow bombing, I still hear the conspirecy theories. The really scary thing is that normally the easiest answer is correct one. It is really easy for a small group of people to cause a large amount of destruction if they only want to....
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 31st, 2006, 3:19 pm #5

Yes, I considered that Jafo (and welcome to Potpourri) but if you watch the video you will see flashes of light around the periphery just before the collapse begins. Flashes from what?- explosive charges going off? And why are these flashes and smoke coming from a floor BELOW the impact point (the impact point- is the big gaping hole ABOVE this floor).

I won't say there can not be an alternate explanation for what happen here- but more inexplicable is the collapse of building 7 which was not hit at all- yet it went down just like a controlled demolition hours later. And why was all the scrap steel from the WTC hurried out of the country to be smelted down in a foreign refinery? It's like destroying crime scene evidence.

I share the reluctance of fellow Americans to believe their own government could be duplicitous in the 9/11 attack. When I first heard this theory I dismissed it as rubbish. And even now I'm not convinced- but with each new thing I learn about 9/11 and things that happen before and since, the pieces seem to tilt more and more in this direction. It not like such a thing is unprecedented. There is now evidence that Roosevelt expected the attack on Peal Harbor but felt it was the only way to motivate the US people's support for entering WW-II.

In any case, I brought this to the forum for consideration and am surprised that such an astounding allegation has not generated more interest.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: March 8th, 2006, 9:51 am

March 31st, 2006, 4:24 pm #6

Ridiculous, ofcourse. Or is it? Recently responsible people have begun asking good questions about what happen 9/11 and when you study the events of that day a lot of things just don't add up- unless that is, you except the notion that our government not only knew 9/11 was going to happen, but actually helped it happen!

Lets just consider the attack on the Pentagon:
Air Force Norad pilots say that Norad was ordered in an unusual state of 'stand-down' that day and fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base that are suppose to protect Washington were kept on the ground right through the attack. Eye-witnesses report that the plane which hit the pentagon was not a 767 like the government claims but a much smaller plane and experienced pilots say it would have been impossible for a 767 to make the maneuvers this plane did before it hit the building. And how convenient that the plane happen to hit the one part of the building that was empty for renovation at the time. And that the resulting explosion was more characteristic of plastic explosives than burning jet fuel. That no parts of a 767 were ever found at the site. That reporters were never allow to see the wreckage or ask Pentagon employees any questions. And that right after the crash the FBI took all outside surveillance tapes from every store in the area and not one of these tapes has ever been released. What are they hiding?

There are many more strange facts about 9/11 but this is enough to ponder for now.

So why would the US government permit and even aid an attack on it's own country? Because it was necessary to have a "Peal Harbor" like event in order to hype the public up for a long hard war against the middle east, which is only part of an even bigger plan. More on this later.
That's about what I thought (was afraid of, actually) on the first day. I must admit that I may have been biased, since I had just read that August a book from Frederick Forsyth, I think it was "the deceiver"... in which some agressions were organized, if not by Government agencies, by economical powers...
Reply
Like
Share

John Bayko
John Bayko

April 1st, 2006, 1:02 am #7

Yes, I considered that Jafo (and welcome to Potpourri) but if you watch the video you will see flashes of light around the periphery just before the collapse begins. Flashes from what?- explosive charges going off? And why are these flashes and smoke coming from a floor BELOW the impact point (the impact point- is the big gaping hole ABOVE this floor).

I won't say there can not be an alternate explanation for what happen here- but more inexplicable is the collapse of building 7 which was not hit at all- yet it went down just like a controlled demolition hours later. And why was all the scrap steel from the WTC hurried out of the country to be smelted down in a foreign refinery? It's like destroying crime scene evidence.

I share the reluctance of fellow Americans to believe their own government could be duplicitous in the 9/11 attack. When I first heard this theory I dismissed it as rubbish. And even now I'm not convinced- but with each new thing I learn about 9/11 and things that happen before and since, the pieces seem to tilt more and more in this direction. It not like such a thing is unprecedented. There is now evidence that Roosevelt expected the attack on Peal Harbor but felt it was the only way to motivate the US people's support for entering WW-II.

In any case, I brought this to the forum for consideration and am surprised that such an astounding allegation has not generated more interest.
One thing about conspiracists, they are good ar raising questions, but lousy at making the effort to find the answers. Look up the accusations that the moon landing was faked - the "evidence" is often hilarious. For example, they point out that the flag was seen waving, indicating the presence of air - despite the "hoax" being on an indoor, windless set (and it only waved when it was being moved by hand).

"Yes, I considered that [air forced out] but if you watch the video you will see flashes of light around the periphery just before the collapse begins. Flashes from what?- explosive charges going off?"

There was still plenty of flammable material there, not all of it jet fuel. Blow on embers, they glow. A rush of air causes anything burning or at the flash point to flare up.

"but more inexplicable is the collapse of building 7 which was not hit at all [...]"

Not directly, but debris hit it, and there was a fire inside. More importantly, it had a backup electrical generator, including lots of fuel oil, which probably caused the same type of steel fatigue which caused the main tower collapse.

"And why was all the scrap steel from the WTC hurried out of the country to be smelted down in a foreign refinery?"

Refined steel is valuable. The first thing done with any collapsed building is to sell the scrap - and as it was being carted away anyway to search for survivors, the building owners (an area authority of some sort I believe) figured it would be simpler to move it from there to the buyers, rather than try to find a place to store it meantime (leased, waste of money, etc.).

It was stopped when investigators noticed what was happening. The investigators are satisfied they were able to inspect as much as they needed.

BTW, was it really out of the country? I thought it stayed fairly close by, except for some bought to be made into souveniers, but I never kept up with that part...

"I share the reluctance of fellow Americans to believe their own government could be duplicitous in the 9/11 attack."

I think the last time such a thing was seriously proposed was "Operation Northwood" - do a search for it. It was a proposal to sink a U.S vessel or commit some other terrorist act against the U.S, then blame Cuba, and go in for a "regime change". Although it was proposed, it was flatly rejected. However, a similar scheme is accused of starting the Spanish-American war.

"There is now evidence that Roosevelt expected the attack on Peal Harbor but felt it was the only way to motivate the US people's support for entering WW-II."

I'm undecided about that, but I do follow Heinlein's Razor, which states "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". Or ignorance, and ignorance (or simply the slow travel of information) is a staple of government. I would have expected that the simple declaration of war by Japan (and Germany) on the U.S would be considered enough. An attack on Pearl Harbor was still an attack on the U.S, regardless of whether it was expected or not (and even if it wasn't a sneak attack, the government could have said it was anyway for the same effect, and not lost so many lives and ships).

The official history of the Pearl Harbor attack is consistent, especially considering the development of air attacks and introduction of other technology such as Radar were such new developments that it's unlikely they would have been understood and effectively prepared for, especially during nominal peacetime. Mistakes were inevitable - it would have been suspicious if major mistakes *weren't* made.
Reply
Share

John Bayko
John Bayko

April 1st, 2006, 1:21 am #8

Yes, I saw a documentary on this very subject, which covered the details you listed, and suspicious things re the attacks on WTC, and noted that 26 members of the bid Laden family were flown out of the U.S. following the attacks -- at a time when all air traffic was supposedly grounded (some of this was covered in Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" and by Alex Jones (www.infowars.com and prisonplanet.com) ). I'm sure there is much that the American public does not know . . and won't see on any of the mainstream news outlets.
"I'm sure there is much that the American public does not know . . and won't see on any of the mainstream news outlets. "

I suspect much of it is lack of interest. Mainstream news is not in the business of informing or educating anyone, so you can't expect it to. The most obvious evidence of this is that language and images are routinely censored on broadcasts - and anything else unpleasant (or boring) won't be on the commercial news. Your best bet for independent news is PBS and NPR, ironically.

Incidentally, seven of the alleged 9/11 hijackers claim that they had nothing to do with it, and deny that they died four years ago. The FBI still asserts on their web site that they are lying, and are actually dead.

Investigation is a messy business. I suspect the FBI actually knows that their initial suspect list is incorrect, but there's not real point to making a press release of it, as it's no longer news (except conspiracy theorists keep on about it). Still, exactly how much is really known by the FBI and how much isn't is an open question, which they could be more cooperative about except that contrary to popular perception, the FBI is not a law enforcement agency, it is an intelligence agency, which means it's top priority upon learning something is to ensure that absolutely no-one else outside the chain of authority finds out about it.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 1st, 2006, 3:43 am #9

One thing about conspiracists, they are good ar raising questions, but lousy at making the effort to find the answers. Look up the accusations that the moon landing was faked - the "evidence" is often hilarious. For example, they point out that the flag was seen waving, indicating the presence of air - despite the "hoax" being on an indoor, windless set (and it only waved when it was being moved by hand).

"Yes, I considered that [air forced out] but if you watch the video you will see flashes of light around the periphery just before the collapse begins. Flashes from what?- explosive charges going off?"

There was still plenty of flammable material there, not all of it jet fuel. Blow on embers, they glow. A rush of air causes anything burning or at the flash point to flare up.

"but more inexplicable is the collapse of building 7 which was not hit at all [...]"

Not directly, but debris hit it, and there was a fire inside. More importantly, it had a backup electrical generator, including lots of fuel oil, which probably caused the same type of steel fatigue which caused the main tower collapse.

"And why was all the scrap steel from the WTC hurried out of the country to be smelted down in a foreign refinery?"

Refined steel is valuable. The first thing done with any collapsed building is to sell the scrap - and as it was being carted away anyway to search for survivors, the building owners (an area authority of some sort I believe) figured it would be simpler to move it from there to the buyers, rather than try to find a place to store it meantime (leased, waste of money, etc.).

It was stopped when investigators noticed what was happening. The investigators are satisfied they were able to inspect as much as they needed.

BTW, was it really out of the country? I thought it stayed fairly close by, except for some bought to be made into souveniers, but I never kept up with that part...

"I share the reluctance of fellow Americans to believe their own government could be duplicitous in the 9/11 attack."

I think the last time such a thing was seriously proposed was "Operation Northwood" - do a search for it. It was a proposal to sink a U.S vessel or commit some other terrorist act against the U.S, then blame Cuba, and go in for a "regime change". Although it was proposed, it was flatly rejected. However, a similar scheme is accused of starting the Spanish-American war.

"There is now evidence that Roosevelt expected the attack on Peal Harbor but felt it was the only way to motivate the US people's support for entering WW-II."

I'm undecided about that, but I do follow Heinlein's Razor, which states "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". Or ignorance, and ignorance (or simply the slow travel of information) is a staple of government. I would have expected that the simple declaration of war by Japan (and Germany) on the U.S would be considered enough. An attack on Pearl Harbor was still an attack on the U.S, regardless of whether it was expected or not (and even if it wasn't a sneak attack, the government could have said it was anyway for the same effect, and not lost so many lives and ships).

The official history of the Pearl Harbor attack is consistent, especially considering the development of air attacks and introduction of other technology such as Radar were such new developments that it's unlikely they would have been understood and effectively prepared for, especially during nominal peacetime. Mistakes were inevitable - it would have been suspicious if major mistakes *weren't* made.
I don't think the collapses of the WTC towers is the most compelling evidence really. I brought it up mainly because I had that great photo (and obviously I don't anything so impressive of the pentagon) but I won't deny that the official explanation of the WTC collapse (the weakening of slab support beams because of insulation failure) is plausible when added to the structural damage caused by the planes.

Building 7's collapse is a bit harder to figure. It has been pointed out that there has never been a collapse of a steel-frame building from fire alone. In the case of the towers many support beams were severed by the aircrafts greatly weakening the structure and contributing to the failure. I do not think similar damage occurred to #7's support system. And as I understand it, even the fire was not all that great, less than fires in other steel frame buildings which have not collapsed. But even this is not as compelling as the strange situation at the Pentagon. Its the secrecy here that opens it up to suspicion.
Reply
Like
Share

Jafo
Jafo

April 3rd, 2006, 5:11 am #10

Ridiculous, ofcourse. Or is it? Recently responsible people have begun asking good questions about what happen 9/11 and when you study the events of that day a lot of things just don't add up- unless that is, you except the notion that our government not only knew 9/11 was going to happen, but actually helped it happen!

Lets just consider the attack on the Pentagon:
Air Force Norad pilots say that Norad was ordered in an unusual state of 'stand-down' that day and fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base that are suppose to protect Washington were kept on the ground right through the attack. Eye-witnesses report that the plane which hit the pentagon was not a 767 like the government claims but a much smaller plane and experienced pilots say it would have been impossible for a 767 to make the maneuvers this plane did before it hit the building. And how convenient that the plane happen to hit the one part of the building that was empty for renovation at the time. And that the resulting explosion was more characteristic of plastic explosives than burning jet fuel. That no parts of a 767 were ever found at the site. That reporters were never allow to see the wreckage or ask Pentagon employees any questions. And that right after the crash the FBI took all outside surveillance tapes from every store in the area and not one of these tapes has ever been released. What are they hiding?

There are many more strange facts about 9/11 but this is enough to ponder for now.

So why would the US government permit and even aid an attack on it's own country? Because it was necessary to have a "Peal Harbor" like event in order to hype the public up for a long hard war against the middle east, which is only part of an even bigger plan. More on this later.
First, thanks for the invite. Hope I do not destroy that welcome.

Second: Why would 9/11 be needed to drum up support for a war? If those of us that were working with the refugees of the first war were able to tell our story, I honestly feel that would have been enough. The way Sadam treated people made me physically ill more than once. The people that were with me tried to tell reporters about the rapes, tour tore, and killings, but one NPR reporter told me I had to by lying, and she was going to tell the real story. If the press was not censoring our stories I feel the people of the world would never have allowed Bush to sign the cease fire.

Since there was just a cease fire, there really was no legal reason why any NATO forces could not resume hostilities the first time Sadam violated the no fly zone. When he gassed thousands of Kurds, we could have started again. I personally reject the notion that Americans will only go to war over American interests. I may be idealistic here, but I really believe that we would support any war to remove someone like that.


Reply
Share