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

Yeah loose change does point the finger at the govenment- but everyone knows Bush could not organise anything and pull of anything like that, so as with most conspiracy theories they invent some sinister shadow govenment that the existance of cannot be proven of disproven to blame.

However the more interlectual and mature people within the movement understand that its not really about blame at this stage, it is more to do with looking at the edivence and trying to bring about a new investigation.

You have to prove tha a crime has taken place before you can go looking for the culprit.

Thats the problem with some 'theories' they go too much of the way to filling in the blanks and then you are half way dealing with fiction when you should be looking at the facts.

Still- you have to look at peoples pasts and who benifited from the 911- Bush is a puppet, my money would be on Cheney- he tells some very interesting lies in the 911 comission report that suggest at least he let the plane hit the pentagon when he could have shot it down.

 

In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. If someone asserts that there was a large quantity of molten metal at the WTC site as a fact, and that fact doesn't fit with the facts of the official story, then they are already implying something and I think one is obligated to follow it to the logical (or illogical) conclusion.

 

Yeah I will go as far to say I believe their were bombs in the buildings and that I dont think Al Queda put them there.

Anything more is not confirmed at this point- from that edivence alone though I can say that the 911 comission report was a cover up and a farse, and obviously that was funded by the govenment- what was it covering up though? so I do implement the govenment on some level.

We need a real investigation into 911.

( Its not just me that believes the molten metal was there- NASA backs me up )


Can I just ask out of interest, is there anything about the Govenment version of events that doesnt sit right with you or that you dont believe? or do you trust it word for word?[/i]

 

Today I feel the same about the official version of events. I stick by what I said on page 2 of the thread you're reading now, and what I said in this other thread:

http://skullbrain.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=15274

 

I don't understand how you can believe the official line.
I say that honestly, not as an attack at all.
The way I see it, either the US Government was aware and in turn involved with the attack on some level or they weren't aware and were truly caught off guard. If that is the case, then it is a colossal intelligence failing, like massive! Humongo even... Which then admits the fact that the US intel (and most likely more) just isn't all it makes out to be or wants to be and is pissing about with god knows what...

I know that there are some who will say, we have no idea how many other plots have been foiled, and while that is certainly the case, I would think that when you have a minimum of 19 people involved in keeping a secret as massive as this, someone is going to slip up and tell the wrong person or something, they just had to know.
It breaks down to which is more logical-
19 people (not including the men behind the curtain) keeping something like this secret for over 6+ months
or
Someone slipping up...

 

It's true, our intelligence capacity at the time Bush took office and afterwards was hampered due to a lack of attention from the President's office. The Richard Clarke testimony in the official 9/11 report lines this out pretty clearly. We were definitely asleep on the job.

Well, they did catch Zacharias Moussaoui, didn't they?

If some of the conspiracy theories posited by the critics (planting demolition charges in the towers, kidnapping entire planes full of people, etc.) were true, you'd have hundreds and hundreds of people involved in pulling it off. If you think one person out of 19 would blab, why haven't we heard from anyone involved in any of these conspiracies?

 

Oh I don't know about being asleep on the job. Read Tim Weiner's "The History of the CIA." it documents how CIA officials were panicked about what they suspected was going to be a large imminent attack on US soil, and were advising Condoleeza Rice (who turned a deaf ear to the reports) right up to the week of the attacks. The lies told by the Bush Administration about the role of "faulty intelligence" are myriad. It is definitely true that CIA and FBI, as always, bickered, withheld intel from one another, and so on. I still don't understand why Director Tenent, probably one of the best-qualified DoI's ever, allowed himself to be the fall guy (and then later petulantly tried to save his rep, to general indifference.)

 

I don't really support those theories, and yes, I am sure people there would have slipped up.
And perhaps they have except that what they say is being dismissed as unbelievable conspiracy nonsense...
For years no one believed in Area 51. Finally those UFO nutters were vindicated.

 

Indeed. If I'd told anyone fifteen years ago that I'd been reading about a secret contingency government of unelected, unknown officials in a massive underground facility at Mount Weather, they would have laughed and handed me a tinfoil hat. However, there were leaks and rumors and accounts. Now it's openly documented fact. Odd that it was the Dubya Administration that went public with the admission. Similarly, when the "patriot movement" (remember the militias?) was in full swing during the Clinton years, there was much talk of secret detention camps being built at remote locations around the nation. People said it was crazy talk. Now it's known to be true. I consider myself someone with an anti-conspiratological interest in fringe beliefs, but some of what one comes across turns out to be not so nutty and paranoid.

 

My last post on the subject now, as I worry I am repeating myself and starting to annoy people.


If you look at the molten metal- this is all you need to prove that there were explosives (Thermate) in the buildings. Then everything else crumbles.

( not that it isnt already plainly obvious as there 1000's of inconsistancies and unxplained phenomona in the 'Official report.')

So how can anyone deny that the molten metal was there?

The first responders saw it, it was mentioned in the new york times, it was photographed, even metioned in the 911 comission report and finally photographed by NASA.

The one thing no one can debate, argue with or fabricate is the science. The laws of physics are a given.

The temperatures required to melt this steel can no way be explained by the official story and the official story make no attempt to- this molten steel is the smoking gun.

Anyone who doesnt believe this or tries to deny that the molten steel was there- or doesnt see the significance or inportance needs to stop and think about it for a moment.

There is no explination other than explosives (Thermate)

Please someone prove me wrong!!!!

 

I really enjoy reading other peoples' thoughts on this - makes you think about things you may not have otherwise thought about.
I feel that the government is complicit in some form - whether it's "merely" turning a deaf ear to the intelligence reports or as involved as coordinating the events, I don't know. But some level of blame can be laid at the feet of our government.
Both Samba and Roger have valid points - that being the molten steel, and the question asking why would we crash planes into the towers if they were rigged with explosives. Though I have to say that one is (apparently) a fact and the other is a question - but a good one. However, there's possibly a "good" reason for crashing the planes into the buildings - create more fear to help pave the way for actions such as the Patriot Act; to act as a warning to allow thousands of people to escape prior to detonation; to attempt to hide the detonation; other hidden agendas. Who knows? But there could be an answer to that question.
I also think that the argument about involved persons blabbing is interesting. You WOULD think that we would have heard something from someone involved. But the counter-argument is viable - perhaps we have and they've been written off as nut jobs. Or perhaps the people involved are good at keeping secrets as with Area 51 - and perhaps it's in their "best interest" to keep the secret.
Anyway - I don't think that the book will ever be closed. It's a grand-scale JFK assassination, and we're still talking about that 4 decades after the fact.

 

If anyone stepped forward, the 9/11 conspiracy theory supporters would be parading them all over the internet. I haven't seen anything like this.

I don't think anyone ever denied the existence of Area 51, nor do I think anyone has been vindicated, unless our government has acknowledged that they're flying captured alien spacecraft there.

 

I agree with you, I meant that our government wasn't functioning as one cohesive entity when it came to these security threats. At least the people in the White House could be considered "sleeping on the job" for ignoring this stuff (willfully or otherwise), but if the head is asleep, then the rest of the body can't act...

 

I'm not an engineer, so I really can't debate you on this point.

But let's go one step further and assume for the sake of discussion that you're right. That there was molten metal at the site, confirming the existence of explosives. Now that you've advanced this theory, take the theory one step further and posit explanations for these questions:

- Who put the explosives there?

- Why would they put them there?

- How did they plant the explosives without getting caught?

- How did they keep it a secret before, during, and after the operation?

I'm asking because I'm curious about what you believe regarding this, and for me, this is where the discussion really gets interesting.

 

I brought this question to lunch with me, and none of us could really justify going to the trouble of hijacking planes if the buildings were rigged to explode. There were way too many things that could have gone wrong with the hijackings, and if someone was planning this like a military operation, they'd want to reduce their risk as much as possible.

It would be like flying Lee Harvey Oswald in on a helicopter to hover and shoot at JFK from overhead at Dealy Plaza. A tremendous amount of effort and added risk for no additional benefit.

This is the other thing we discussed. With the internet at the level it is nowadays, and everyone having the power to post messages on BBSes, blogs, videos, etc. as easily as posting a sign on a telephone pole, you'd think that someone would have come forth with something substantial.

 

Sorry to cop out on you- but this is as far as I go, at this point you can prove that the 'official story' and the Commision report are a farce and a cover up and that we need a new real investigation.

Thats as far as I go- I could piece together other facts but I would be getting to the point where I would be filling in the blanks with flimsy edivence, heresay and my imagination which is pointless and would be a 'theory.'

Molten Metal is 'Conspiracy Fact'- and proves explosives/ controlled demolition and that we need a new investigation, which is all anyone wants.

I would start with the people at NIST and ask them at which point they discovered it was a controlled demolition and why they covered it up and who told them too and take it from there.

 

Okay, then, for the sake of keeping the conversation going I'll back up.

What about the seismic evidence that indicates that there were no explosions prior to the collapse? Here's a starting point:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=5

 

But that's my point - just because YOU can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't a reason. It's not a good argument for believing what the government has told you.

Not necessarily. Let's say I was involved and my superiors told me that if I let one word slip my family would be killed - I probably wouldn't let one word slip. From what I hear anonymous BBSes aren't so anonymous. IF the govt was involved I'm sure they have a complete list of who was "in" and it'd be fairly simple for them to track down the source of leaked info.

 

I brought this question to lunch with me, and none of us could really justify going to the trouble of hijacking planes if the buildings were rigged to explode. There were way too many things that could have gone wrong with the hijackings, and if someone was planning this like a military operation, they'd want to reduce their risk as much as possible.

It would be like flying Lee Harvey Oswald in on a helicopter to hover and shoot at JFK from overhead at Dealy Plaza. A tremendous amount of effort and added risk for no additional benefit.


My take on this is that you have their objectives wrong- who ever did its aim was not to knock down the buildings but instead to traumatise the nation so as they could justify wars, torture, the patriot act ect.

To traumatise you have to have a huge impact, iconic imagry, theatrics. You have to go all out.

Another interesting point about this is-

George bush said in an interview that he saw the video of the first plane hitting the building, and thought it was a terrible accident and continued to go into the class room and read the children the story- then his adviser came and told him the second plane hit and 'America's under attack.' and he sat there for 7 mins then went.

The interesting thing about this is- there is only 1 video of the first plane hitting the towers ( the french brothers making a documentary about New York Firemen) and this tape only surfaced the day after on 9/12. So how did bush watch the video of it happening just a few mins after it happened before he went into the school?

 

you don't need to "assume for the sake of discussion" something that is a proven fact.

Mark Loizeaux (president of clean-up company at wtc site): “hot spots of
molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven basement levels”

Leslie Robertson (engineer/design team member for wtc): “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running”

...just a couple of the hundreds of accounts, quotes, and examples.. not to mention the multiple firefighters and clean-up crew speaking of ground temps of 600 degees fahrenheit and steel beams literally dripping of molten steel.



roger, it seems like you are so determined to not believe in a "conspiracy theory" that you deny the blatant evidence of the government account as being the real conspiracy.


what are your feelings on building 7 ? .. a building which was clearly imploded hours later, collapsing at the bottom first, without ever being hit by anything.. just curious

 

Well, I realize that I just asked the question, and I'd like to see more people than me and my lunch buddies discuss it, but it's not the reason I believe what I believe about that day.

I believe the official story (with a couple of exceptions, noted earlier) because to me it seems plausible and from what I can tell the overwhelming majority of the evidence and testimony supports that. In addition, I haven't seen anything in seven years that is credible or plausible enough to change my mind. It's that simple.

Okay, let's assume that you are one of these people involved in this already and rewind back to September 10th, before your family is being threatened. You are being asked to participate in an operation that will result in the murder of several thousand of your fellow Americans.

You agree to do it, and there's not a peep out of you in over seven years. Not one crisis of conscience or second-guess about what happened.

Now realize that in order to pull something off on this scale successfully, there will have to be at least a few hundred people just like you, in New York, Washington, and on planes in the air in order to do this. You'll all be working before and after the event to achieve the initial goal and then subsequently cover it up.

Does that sound plausible?

 

and just a fyi, i'm not attacking anyones beliefs here...
just wondering how people can discount all of this evidence.

i tried to stay away from this thread after surprisingly seeing how many brainers believe the original story, etc... but to deny that there was molten steel at the sites and to say that building 7 collapsed because of fire and an "unusual construction" (which is that articles arguement that you posted, completely based on findings by NIST ) is just absurd.

 

To clarify, not once during this discussion have I denied or acknowledged the existence of molten steel at the WTC site. I did cite the seismic evidence that contradicts the idea that there were explosives, but that's as far as I'm willing to go down that road.

I think the divide here is that I'm looking at this from the top down and trying to point out what the implications are regarding the evidence that Samba and others are citing, whether it's legit or not.

They seem to be approaching the situation from the bottom up, analyzing minutiae regarding melting temperatures and such. To me that's not as interesting a conversation (and let's face it, that's why we're all here).

For instance, if someone asserts that there was a large quantity of molten metal at the site, and that is evidence of explosives being used, then I really want to hear why they think that's plausible.

To me, rigging the towers with explosives is an operation that would involve movements of people and equipment involving dozens, if not hundreds of people, not to mention whatever it took to cover it up while it was happening.

From where I'm standing, it's the stuff of fantasy. I could see someone pulling it off with robots, or brainwashed people wearing Predator-style invisibility suits.

I always want to hear other peoples' points of view and why they believe what they believe. I get into discussions with religious people all of the time about their faith and my lack of the same. For me this is a simliar sort of discussion. I want to hear what people think what the "big picture" is going on here.

 

i respect your views and the open discussion...

as far as the point about the putting the explosives in the tower, you do know about Securacom (now Stratesec) right? they were in charge of wtc security since '93 and installed new security systems during this time.. and guess who the company's director was up until 2000?? ... marvin bush! .. and bush's cousin wirt walker was the CEO from '99 to 2002.

a man named scott forbes who worked in the wtc at Fiduciary Trust wrote: "On the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, there was a “power down” condition in the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up.... The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded.... Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors while many, many “engineers” were coming in and out of the tower."

clearly wouldn't need robots or invisibility suits to plant explosives during this time.

 

Where do you find people who will knowingly and willingly plant explosives in an office building where tens of thousands of innocent people, their fellow citizens, work every day?

It's still the stuff of fantasy to me, like the clone troopers in Star Wars who pal around with Obi-Wan until a phone call comes in from Old Prune Face. "Blast him!"

Most people around here who know me will tell you I have an incredibly cynical side when it comes to the human race and the way the world works, but I can't swallow what it takes to accept that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition.