to believe some if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories

[mrsunreasonable]

NOTE: This is not meant to be offensive and if you suffered as a result of 9/11 you have my deepest sympathies it was a terrible event however it was caused.

Having watched a few documentaries on the conspiracy theories I am partially if not completely convinced all was not as it seemed. The fact that many witnesses that saw/heard things that didn't tie in with the official version have since died in suspicious circumstances doesn't help!

Snorbs, I don't know what the answer is. I listen to different explanations, but I am none the wiser. I find it hard to understand how WYC7 could have fallen into its own footprint in seconds, given that it was not hit by a plane, which was the explanantion given for the collapse of the Twin Towers. But, I don't know the answers. I don't think that the people who do ask questions are whack-jobs, though.

I'm not asking for a definitive answer; I'm just wondering what your opinion is of the most likely explanation.

Or is it that, after nine years of speculation, theories, investigations and ideas, you still have no opinion whatsoever about what happened that day?

Well...in my as yet unformed opinion, I did wonder whether there were some explosives used in all the towers that fell. I mean if they were as weak structurally as people keep saying, it wouldn't have taken an awful lot in terms of cutter charges, to help it on its way - would it?

Tower 7 collapsing totally symmetrically and the Silverstein statement ('Pull it' - is that really a term used for pulling people out of a building? Never heard it in that context before) seems (and I say this as a naive, non-expert type person - like many other members of the unsatisfied public) suspicious. The BBC reporting it collapsed well before it did is also weird...any explanations for that?

I think it's highly plausible given what Kurkum posted that the US govt was willing and able to conspire in killing of its own innocents in order to achieve a political aim, however I don't know what that aim would be. I'm not interested in it.

From a completely lay point of view, it looks as though the planes were a great display but the towers had help coming down afterwards - sorry but I still don't find it easy to accept the conjecture about how steel columns would behave under that kind of stress, though I admit it's possibly correct. I think it's possible that the power down condition the weekend prior to the attacks was when 'things' were planted which ensured the towers came down completely. (again I am still speaking as a lay observer)

Until I see footage of a plane hitting the pentagon, I don't believe it was a passenger jet. They have footage; why not release it?

The hole where flight 93 apparently hit was already there if you look at the USGS aerial pictures from 1994.

What I am stating here is not expert opinion. It's what to me seems most likely, and yes that means I haven't taken into account the complex engineering paper linked to below. (tokyo, you are clearly very well educated in physics but are not an engineer and said yourself you were not aware of the structure of the WTC when you linked to that - which makes me wonder why you believed it? Not being horrid but it surprised me when you admitted that later)

What would you guys say to someone like me, a member of the public, who isn't well up on structural physics, about these conjectures? How would you disprove them?

Is there any reason why they couldn't be true?

(forgetting for a moment the argument that no one has come forward - some people have. Some of them have mysteriously been killed or have had gagging orders imposed - do you think the government would 'allow' credible witnesses to speak out about this, yet?)

I just want someone to try to disprove what I have suggested a lot of people think, given the doubt over the actual story in the media. I can't disprove a scientific theory but can anyone disprove a non scientific one?

'What's your point? Or are you trying to imply that, because the US has been involved in very shady operations outside of the US, that they were involved in the 9/11 attacks?'

Well, Snorbs, have you got any reason to think this time was different?

Obviously we don't know if they were involved, but given they have serious form, it could do with ruling out!

Several fairly good reasons, not least:

1. The CIA's covert and dirty operations in the past and present are in non-US countries. That's a very important factor for the CIA.

2. There's no coherent story for what the CIA would hope to achieve by carrying out these attacks that would require such a large loss of life and massive economic effects.

3. If the CIA were behind it then flying aircraft into buildings, and then blowing those buildings up as controlled demolitions, simply doesn't make sense.

4. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the CIA were involved.

5. As for the Pentagon, a lot of eye witnesses saw the aircraft flying low and hitting the building. Do you believe they were all mistaken and/or government shills?

By the way, you state that "The hole where flight 93 apparently hit was already there if you look at the USGS aerial pictures from 1994." Got any references for that?

this is about the debris field

There are loads of references to the flight 93 crash site if you just google it with the year 1994.

I don't know if it checks out or not but when I looked I thought it might do.

'Several fairly good reasons, not least:

1. The CIA's covert and dirty operations in the past and present are in non-US countries. That's a very important factor for the CIA.

(it was, clearly, but is it still? and how do we know this?)

2. There's no coherent story for what the CIA would hope to achieve by carrying out these attacks that would require such a large loss of life and massive economic effects.

So, basically, we don't have the full story - but several motives have been suggested.

3. If the CIA were behind it then flying aircraft into buildings, and then blowing those buildings up as controlled demolitions, simply doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? To the casual observer it would be a great psy-op to make it look like terrorists aimed jets at the towers - really big bang - shock and awe etc. but the towers had to go for various reasons, so they wired them up (this is all speculation, I'm not saying it's true) to make it look really effective.

It would make a lot of sense if they wanted people to be shocked.

4. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the CIA were involved.

Well, not availabe to us anyway. There could be evidence that has been suppressed. this is not the point.

I asked if you could disprove that the version of events I described was plausible. Instead you are stating reasons why it is not believed by some people. ie lack of evidence, etc. That's not telling me anything I don't know - I want to know whether what I describe could have happened, and if not, why not? We've been through people asking me to disprove the official version, which I could not.
So I thought it would be interesting to turn it around iyswim.

5. As for the Pentagon, a lot of eye witnesses saw the aircraft flying low and hitting the building. Do you believe they were all mistaken and/or government shills?

Who are these eye witnesses? I have no idea who they are. For all I know, you and Tokyo could be government shills! I've heard no witness reports and seen no report into how such a big plane made such a little tiny hole in the Pentagon.

Btw Snorbs, I'm not in the mood for being adversarial or confrontational so I hope it doesn't come across that way - I'm just tired and writing without much attempt towards grace or diplomacy.

Forgive my blunt style tonight, if you are sick of it all I shan't mind if we just leave it.

You're probably right, no matter what I might put forward.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

good points Flighttattendant.
Which is more probable, that three buildings collapsed into their own footprints at freefall speed due to be hitting by two planes, or that all three buildings were pre-wired and brought down in a controlled demolition?

The official investigation gives us a who, what, where, when, how and why of the attacks. The "controlled demolition" idea disputes part of the "how" but also negates pretty much all of the rest, too. So if you're going to negate all that it is rather beholden on you to come up with an alternative and similarly plausible scenario. Otherwise all your doing is the same as the people who say "Some of the shadows look a bit odd on a few of the Apollo moon-landing pics" and extrapolating that to believing that the entire thing was faked.

But let's explore the idea that it was a CIA plot. Why didn't they just set disable the fire suppression systems and then torch the WTC buildings? The sight of two (or three, if you include WTC7) enormous buildings going up like torches would stick in the mind just as powerfully as them collapsing. More so, in some ways, as the twisted and blackened skeletons of the buildings would stand for quite a while before they could be dismantled.

Could it have been a CIA plot? It's not 100% impossible but it is fantastically unlikely as the CIA just doesn't pull that kind of shit on US soil. They'll happily treat the rest of the world as their espionage playground but they're not in the business of deliberately killing US civilians. Hell, it could've been a KGB (or whatever they're called these days) plot. It could've been a Mossad plot. It could've been the Iraqi Republican Guard. It could've been MI5. It could've been aliens from a distant planet. But none of those are likely.

The best evidence, supported by shitloads of testimony, investigations, expert witnesses and simulations, and that provides a complete coherent scenario that explains all of the who, what, when, how and why, is the one that was in the official reports.

Even with the controlled-demolition theories, no-one that I've seen has come up with a believable idea for how and when the buildings were supposed to have been loaded with tons of explosives and/or thermite. Or who did that work, or who supplied the explosives etc. Or why such a plot was seen to be needed given the risks of discovery.

Give me even a basic hint of a who, what, when, where, how and why of the conspiracy theories and I'll prick my ears up and listen. Keep on the "I can't see how a seriously damaged building could collapse that fast and I don't believe the experts who have studied it and who describe how it happened" and, frankly, I'm wasting my time.

claig, I'm still wondering what your opinion is of the most likely explanation.

Or is it that, after nine years of speculation, theories, investigations and ideas, you still have no opinion whatsoever about what happened that day?

I don't know what happened. I have just heard some of the theories that the conspiracy theorists have come up with to explain what happened.

"Why didn't they just set disable the fire suppression systems and then torch the WTC buildings? The sight of two (or three, if you include WTC7) enormous buildings going up like torches would stick in the mind just as powerfully as them collapsing."
They say that there were a number of goals in bringing the buildings down, which is why these particular buildings were chosen. It was not just to shock people and pinpoint the culprits. They say that the buildings contained lots of asbestos and needed expensive refurbishing. They say that a controlled demolition allowed for a rebuild and an insurance claim. They say that WTC7 contained documents of the Enron and Worldcom investigations, as well as some gold fixing documents etc., which all disappeared without any backup.

It may not have been the CIA. As Kurkum showed, there were plans in the early sixties to bring down planes in the US and blame it on the Cubans. Also Kurkum mentioned operations in Europe which were blamed on Red Brigades etc.

There were reports that the electricity was turned off during the weekend before the attack, as work was done in the building.

A full-building fire would arguably be a more reliable method of destroying evidence than a demolition. And if WTC1 and 2 were demolished for an insurance claim, it would've worked a hell of a lot better if the owners had insured both towers. They didn't. They didn't believe that there could be any disaster that would befall both towers at once.

Nevertheless, I must congratulate you on the openness of your mind. You must consider all theories as equally possible and equally plausible - the official version, CIA-backed controlled demolition, hologram aircraft, Mossad, aliens, consensual hallucination... In claig's world, they're all exactly equally possible.

How singular.

Further back, SGB said she has a friend who actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

I haven't been here long but I had already picked SGB as a CIA operator, (or at the very least, someone who hangs out with CIA operators) - or perhaps SGB is with MI5? I mean, there is no way of proving that she isnt, is there? So I have to give that theory credence, don't I?

Or do I? Doesn't it seem just a little, teeny, weeny bit more likely that SGB is, well, just an everyday mumsnetter like the rest of us, who has a friend who saw a plane hit the Pentagon?
Nah, that is just too simple an explanation....

well done tokyonambu and snorbs, how you two have managed to stay here and continue to post your very well educated thoughts so patiently and clearly, amazes me. I would have given up trying long ago in the face of the responses. I dont think I have ever seen a thread on any forum, anywhere, where a head-banging-against-brick-wall smiley was more needed.

Snorbs:

'So if you're going to negate all that it is rather beholden on you to come up with an alternative and similarly plausible scenario'

That's what I just tried to do. But you haven't told me why my theory isn't plausible - only that it seems to you 'unlikely'. Sure I didn't blueprint all the details of who did what and when they managed it but I don't think it's impossible it was managed, given some guys in a cave many miles away achieved what you suppose they did - why do you?

'But let's explore the idea that it was a CIA plot. Why didn't they just set disable the fire suppression systems and then torch the WTC buildings? The sight of two (or three, if you include WTC7) enormous buildings going up like torches would stick in the mind just as powerfully as them collapsing. More so, in some ways, as the twisted and blackened skeletons of the buildings would stand for quite a while before they could be dismantled.'

Yes, yes, there are plenty of ways they could have shocked people - why this way and not another isn't really the point.

'The best evidence, supported by shitloads of testimony, investigations, expert witnesses and simulations, and that provides a complete coherent scenario that explains all of the who, what, when, how and why, is the one that was in the official reports.'

Well that's what they want us to believe - it doesn't mean it's true. Why the vehement resistance to questioning it? Why do you assume it's the 'best' and not just a load of bull? The motive would surely be there for it to be bull.

'Even with the controlled-demolition theories, no-one that I've seen has come up with a believable idea for how and when the buildings were supposed to have been loaded with tons of explosives and/or thermite.[NB thermite now probably not implicated IMO] Or who did that work, or who supplied the explosives etc. Or why such a plot was seen to be needed given the risks of discovery.'

So because they have spent a fortune on coming up with the pile of crap investigative report, which frankly they had little choice but to do - and making it look convincing to some people at least - it means it's going to get your vote by virtue of presentation? They didn't even bother to look for evidence of explosives before shipping everything off to the far east for melting down. It says this in the NIST report. 'Uh - we assumed the buildings collapsed because they were weakened, so we, uh, didn't examine the rubble for this stuff. And it's all gone, now, oh what a shame'

There are loads of theories about who, why and so on if you care to go googling, but you say you don't want to because it's just easier to believe what the government have told you.

I got through my A levels by reading the study guides the night before and bluffing. Sure I got low grades but I passed. Bluffing is the government's forte.

Well now I've read your latest post directed at Claig I think it's us that are wasting our time - why the sneering tone? Why the need to put us down? We are only saying stuff you've asked us to say, and now you feel able to sneer and laugh. Can you not see how transparent our motives are? We are nice, genuine people who are struggling with what to believe. Why do we make you feel threatened enough to be nasty?

Epicfail if you think SGB is 'just an everyday mumsnetter like the rest of us' you definitely have not been here very long...

And I fail to understand why rudeness deserves congratulating. Intelligence yes but rudeness, no. It's important to differentiate.

Plus if you look back you will see that Tokyo was so busy mocking us and the 'troofers' as she sweetly calls them for about half the thread, that she omitted to mention she actually wasn't an engineer and didn't know how the WTC was built. I was surprised to realise I knew more than she did about that - can you see why it makes us go 'hold on a minute'?

I've never erally understood why the 6000 people dying in 9.11 was so much worse than millions on hutus or tutsis or the numbers killed on roads every year or in famines. Still horrible that they died but I don't "get" why it was of such significance to so many people and became such an emotive thing.

As to who did it I am very glad I live in a country where people can still (just) dispute official and unofficial versions and have that freedom of expression. Sadly 9.11 has been used to ensure we have lots a lot of legal rights in the name of "protection". I would rather have the risks and less protections and the legal rights we had before. Thankfully this Govermnent is proposing to abolish a lot of laws. We even gave ourselves the right to seze funds such as those of the Icelandic banks in the name of legislation supposedly there to stop terrorism never mind the extradition treaty with the US which was set up purportedly to deal with terrorism but then of course extended in its reach. Few Governments like to hand back power they have taken.

Kind of off to reference genocide in Rwanda without being quite sure which people were genocidal, and which were victims

Any roads

I'm not sure but I think 9-11 was a big deal to American because it was the largest attack on us civilians, it destroyed some iconic real estate, fucked the economy, and was fairly spectacular

Other than that, no, no reason for them to get so het up

(bit of a straw man to claim anyone is arguing it was worse/more significant than genocide or famine- unless of course you can identify who has claimed that?)

It has had more press than killing on roads though and other things. I just don't "get it" but I accept other people were pretty upset. That doesn't mean in a free world we all have to feel the same things. And we must never be so politically correct that we aren't allowed to express those views. Even the US official investigations have not been too happy with what they found.

I don't have the technical expertise to comment on demolition issues and how buildings fall and most of us don't so like many situations one can never ben sure but I am glad I live in a part of the world where people can question anything.

The UK Government is looking into extradition. I do hope mumsnetters would contribute to the consultation. What I write above is in jeopardy. If I write something in the UK which is lawful under English law like the Holocaust didn't happen (which it did but I would hope most of us in favour of free speech would want to defend to the death the right of people to say otherwise) but breaches a law in another onoe of the 26 EU states I can be shipped off to that other country. That EU and English law is very wrong (European Arrest Warrant).

" I was surprised to realise I knew more than she did about that "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning?Kruger_effect

Aargh: bloody system fails on underscores in URLs.

Dunning Kruger Effect

Tokyo, that's not what's going on.

I did know more about it than you did.

I knew it had a hat truss and trusses spanning the floors from the centre to the perimeter.

I knew this. You said the perimeter walls weren't structural but they were...I think?

Or am I dreaming?

Flighttattendant Wed 15-Sep-10 20:29:51

How are the floors attached to the lift shaft, as well? Can you do that/ I mean some kind of bracket or whatever that extends all the way out from the central shaft thing, to hold up the floor? That is amazing...I had no idea. I thought the outer walls held up the edges of the floors iyswim.

tokyonambu Wed 15-Sep-10 20:43:09

I don't know the design of the WTC buildings, but one way that you can fasten the floors to the core is to project girders outwards, with one end set into the core and the other end projecting out as part of the floor.

Flighttattendant Thu 16-Sep-10 06:37:03

Hang on though. I am certain I have seen documentaries (BBC etc) that explain that the outer walls of the WTC were structurally relevant - ie trusses attached at each floor, to the inner and outer sections. And a 'hat truss' on the top? So there was like an exo-skeleton type of thing.

tokyonambu Thu 16-Sep-10 08:14:07

I've just read a description of the WTC structure, and my account of single core buildings is a reasonable model.

So, not dreaming and not your D-K effect, thankyou very much. Everything else I am prepared to concede that you knew far more than I did about, but nOT that.

Perimeter columns aren't walls. The walls of the WTC are not structural. The only difference between my simplified version and reality is that the WTC buildings had perimeter columns.

Then I don't understand the purpose of the hat truss.