investigate 9/11

[BeetrootsResolution]

My uncle sent me this and thought it was an appropriate time to share it with you

The Truth?

The other thing with this whole pentagon thing....
Why circle the building anyway??? Why fly the plane all the way round to the other side and then hit it???
Donald Rumsfeld...secretary of defense had his office on the other side! Important people had offices around the other side...the so called plane bypasses these...goes all the way round the other side and hits it!
Why do such a manoevre?? The planes on the twin towers didn't bother did they!!!!

MB is a science teacher and my uncle is an architect yet both have totally different opinions - both bright people.

if that wasnt a plane that hit the pentagon, where did that plane go?

The US Attorney General's wife was on that plane. Why didn't they pick another plane, then?

Hmm, snopes says the planes did hit the ground first. This page seems fairly convincing, too.

And also...the wing of the Pentagon that the so called plane hit had only just finished being refurbished and had been strengthened!

which plane are you refering to Quootie?

This is a little bit like the is "the earth flat or round" discussion,we believe what we see and what we are told and obviously there needs to be more proof but perhaps people should keep an open mind.

got home safely glitter?

From my second link, I have C+P this quite convincing point:

Conclusion
I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in any sort of a coverup. I highly doubt that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life for their families. The men and women who pulled over a hundred people (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than not have noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of the fire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagon was not filled with every single person who died in this terrorist attack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is one thing and one thing only - ignorant.

pentagon one I think Lud

that article is good - i think - the engines are still confusing to me - one engine was shown as beign the planes but rolls royce says that is was n't - apparently

Yep thanks Beets and thanks for a great New Year.

As I have said I am still to be convinced but think I dont know one way or the other and all theories may lead to the real truth. I did believe Michael Moore when he said there was more to this than met the eye and think all sorts of things are possible when teh US is involved and doing everything to protect its interests.

Flight 77... if it was hit by a missile, where did flight 77 go?

But WHY? I won't even go into how you would manage to 'disappear' hundreds and hundreds of people - including the US attorney general's wife and other high ranking and famous people, involve the whole of air traffic control (to cover up the landing of the real planes and their substitutions with others) the fire service, the police force (ordinary men and women) as others have said.

And why do you think the Pentagon was hit with 'precision'? If it was hit at all (and it is very large) then it had to be hit somewhere. MB's husband is an RAF pilot. She says that on a flight simulator her young son can hit much smaller targets.

It is a convincing quote indeed....

I still have doubts though..if you are to believe conspiracy theories outlined by Loose Change...they believe the planes were drones...and the pentagon was missile attacked...there is a lot to say this is a bit too far fetched IMO

But I don't get how a plane is supposed to of hit the Pentagon and vapourised on impact...hence no plane parts...yet they claim to of recovered bodies???

What was the MOTIVE?

luladoo - see NQC 2nd link - lots of plane parts, even a wheel rim.

Aloha - what I can make it, the motive was possibly so Bush could get into Iraq...

Im not convinced either way. Something doesn't add up to me. There is good evidence for all arguments. Mind boggling.

But that is the most ridiculous thing ever as a motive. We went into Iraq on the basis of a dodgy dossier! A lot less trouble!
Why would the US Government go to such utterly mind-boggling lengths and have such a (literally) incredibly complex plot to do the same thing?
Also, surely the really vital thing, if this was all a pretext for invading Iraq, would be to create some really convincing, direct links with IRAQ. There were NONE. The pilots were all SAUDI. If the pilots did not exist, and were invented by the CIA (despite the fact that they did exist) surely the CIA would have made them Iraqi, and Iraqi trained. Surely anyone can see that?

C and p

The president himself declared that the attacks provide "a great opportunity."2

Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world."

Condoleeza Rice had said the same thing in mind, telling senior members of the National Security Council to "think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change...the shape of the world."3

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities."4

Thats all I can make out, there might have been other motives. Someone said the WTC buildings were only just insured. Alot of stuff about gold going missing aswell from under one of the buildings? Im only getting bits of this...

'Suggested motives range from expected benefits for US arms and oil conglomerates to revolutionary plans for a new world order headed by the United States.'

But they were going to invade Iraq anyway...and they have got no further than that (because it has been such an almightly cock-up).
If they had invented this whole thing to invade Iraq, they would have invented some links to Iraq as part of it, no question. They certainly wouldn't have invented very close links to Saudi, which is an ally nation.
Yes, of course the neo-cons exploited the situation, but that is completely different to creating it.
The CIA does bad, covert things every day. But this doesn't actually make any sense (as well as being bizarrely convoluted).

Eh, from what I read, their insurance was such that it would only pay for the first of the big two towers destroyed. (New Yorker, I think, said that.)

And what Aloha said, re: motives.

And yeah, it's not news. The US gov't is full of morons. They have had ambitions to roll up their sleeves and muck into other countries' business ... well ... forever. And I wouldn't put it past them to do evil things to achieve that goal (see that poor agent who was outed by them on purpose , because her husband wrote a column about that fake African uranium story). But they're rubbish, there's absolutely no bloody way they could pull off anything this complicated!

the us lost their 3000th serviceman to this war this month. it seems like another vietnam, questions need to be asked...

i realy find it difficult to see how you can keep som many peolpe quiet - it was a massive operation and at least one person would have said something - surely ?