Is it important who is responsible for 9/11?

[Into It]

I don't mean to be imposing.


Only once in my life have I thought that I could find the truth of a matter by examining only one side of it. For some reason, an one's ego can be damaged by having to admit to being for a long period of time, and this is even more true if the issue is one of emotional significance to the individual. As an ENFP, I am used to allowing my emotions to cloud my rationality when they become strong, and this inevitably leads to regret. On one issue in particular, I am ashamed of having irrationally protected my ego for six years, arrogantly assuming that I had all the answers- when I hadn't even asked the questions.

If who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is important to you, then now is the time to ask yourself if you have considered both popular theories fully and without bias. Now is the time because I'm going to provide you with all of the information that I know about the less popular one, which will be sufficient to build a strong case.

My proposition is not that the United States Government blew up the twin towers. That is an inaccurate oversimplification. I am proposing first and foremost that the official story is a lie.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. A significant quantity of melted steel was found in pools at all three of the fallen World Trade Center buildings. Steel CANNOT burn below 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. I believe the minimum temperature it can melt at is 2777 F. Jet fuel does not burn above 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. I believe the maximum temperature that jet fuel can burn is 1517 F. This discrepancy is too large for any fluke to have taken place.

Another item found at all three of the building sites was Thermite. Thermite is a compound that is found at all demolition sites. It is an essential component of the demolition process. The thermite that was found was 'Thermate,' and patented and manufactured brand. Neither of these two very important pieces of evidence showed up in the 9/11 Commission Report. A balanced investigation would not have omitted these facts. But the 9/11 Commission Report was not legitimate. Neither the President or the Vice President were under oath, and a transcript of what took place in the meetings was not allowed, or at least not released, even though a number (a large number, I assume) of the families of 9/11 victims requested one and have continued to request one for obvious reasons.

Blowing up buildings and blaming it on terrorists and factions is not new to America. George H.W. Bush, who spoke passionately about creating a "New World Order," is an ex-director of the CIA. Under his authority, the CIA blew up a number of buildings in other countries and blamed it on someone else to seize political leverage. According to declassified CIA documents, this has taken place over two hundred times. They are called "False Flag" attacks. I sometimes wonder how many False Flag attacks the CIA isn't admitting to.

Always keep in mind that there was a fantastic motivation for committing this crime. The Neo-Conservative strategy that has now been implemented in the Middle East, and that the 9/11 hysteria and momentum was used to propel foward was discussed in a 1997 government think-tank called "The Project for a New American Century." It's stated objective is "to promote American global leadership." Referring to American imperial mobilization, its 2000 document reads: “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” The next year, they got what they needed, and
many of our liberties were removed through the Patriot Act, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and we continue to spread our troops through the Middle East setting up permanent bases to this day. The similarities between these actions and past fascist imperialist movements are dead on. Since the Patriot Act, Executive Orders that are even more damaging to our Constitution and liberties has been passed, though they are rarely mentioned.

This should be enough to at least get the discussion started, though there is much more to be said. I beg you to do the research on your own so that you cannot simply write me off, which is the most common way people react to this information. Also, if anything I have stated in this post is false, please correct me because I want to be as accurate as possible!

[IlyaK1986]

Oh stop it with the conspiracy theories. Even if the whodunnit is still a mystery, despite Osama blatantly admitting to it, you think the people in the Middle East that want to see the end of all western civilization should be left alive?

[Jack Flak]

Oh stop it with the conspiracy theories.
Seconded. This has been done to death, I won't even state the opposing argument.

[heart]

If who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is important to you, then now is the time to ask yourself if you have considered both popular theories fully and without bias.

Why are there only two theories that people can consider?

[Members Only]

There has not been an 'official' unbiased investigation into 9/11, taking into account all the facts.

Therefore, until a true, unbiased investigation is conducted, I can not conclude either way.

Of course, any true investigation is going to be massively hampered, because the US government decided to ship off all the steel from WTC 1, 2, and 7 before any of it could be investigated. Destruction of evidence at the worlds biggest crime scene. Incompetence, or intent, I have a feeling none of us will know in our life times.

you think the people in the Middle East that want to see the end of all western civilization should be left alive?


Ok, if Osama was the culprit behind 9/11. Can you explain me his reasons behind doing so?

[heart]

There has not been an 'official' unbiased investigation into 9/11, taking into account all the facts.

Therefore, until a true, unbiased investigation is conducted, I can not conclude either way.

Of course, any true investigation is going to be massively hampered, because the US government decided to ship off all the steel from WTC 1, 2, and 7 before any of it could be investigated. Destruction of evidence at the worlds biggest crime scene. Incompetence, or intent, I have a feeling none of us will know in our life times.

I agree with you.

I hate to see the questions relating to Sept 11, 2001 wrapped up into either or type senarios when the above is a much more apt fit.

[IlyaK1986]

Ok, if Osama was the culprit behind 9/11. Can you explain me his reasons behind doing so?

ALLAH AKBAR!

Kill the Jews!

Nuff said.

[Members Only]

ALLAH AKBAR!

Kill the Jews!

Nuff said.

Not really.

There is cause beyond, "Kill the Jews!" Of course we all wish it could be that simple - to absolve our own nations of any blame.

[ptgatsby]

Ouchie, I can't believe people still throw this stuff out there.

I can't help but read the arguments like this now:

Did you know that apples are red? Bright red? Yah, obviously 9/11 was a lie.

Steel doesn't have to melt to lose structural support, Osama was a threat for many years before 9/11 and has thoroughly explained (well in advance) why he wants to do what he does, there was no thermite reaction (both for cleanup and before), Bush's historical CIA position is guilt by association (but to what, even, I have no idea), and again, association to the PNAC manifesto shows abuse of power, not guilt.

*shakes head*

Even if it was engineered, the conspiracy theorists pull up a load of crap. The only reasonable avenue for it being a conspiracy was an engineered intelligence failure, and even that borders on fringe, considering how much data was actually picked up (but ignored). Any attempt to engineer this would of left a very large trail in hindsight, whereas it was a huge sequence of open missteps. At least, however, that's a reasonable conspiracy. I mean, an American conspiracy. The real story is a conspiracy too, heh. It just doesn't appeal to our need for 'extraordinary conditions for extraordinary events' needs.

[GZA]

Were you there, measuring and testing and identifying the rubble of Ground Zero or something?


I don't think it matters. A bunch of people died, and I personally think the conspiracies are a little disgraceful to the people who died. It's making this whole ideal of fighting the oppresive machine the purpose rather then looking at what happened to thousands of people.


Bin Laden's motive was to try to destroy and oppress western society in a way that he believes it had oppressed his people. I don't know the intricacies of that, but I think it has soemthing to do with religious smothering and the difference in culture and quality of life. The World Trade Centers epitomized that. It's pretty consistent with terrorism in general -not just a huge inconvenience to the people it is supposed to effect, but it is symbolic, too. The WTC represents what they are fighting against, which bassically capitalism that ruins other ecomonies, or soemthing like that. It's hard to judge because anyone who would even think of the whole thing would have to be a nutcase in the first place.

I think we should just let it go and remember the innocent people who died, cause either way it's very, very tragic. Come on, conspiracy, really?

[IlyaK1986]

Not really.

There is cause beyond, "Kill the Jews!" Of course we all wish it could be that simple - to absolve our own nations of any blame.

It's the conflict over Israel and the fact that we're there in the MidEast helping them. Osama doesn't like us there. He blew up our towers.

The end.

Whack him and every other insane evil Middle Easterner.

[Usehername]

People don't have to be so negative toward the OP. It was thoughtfully and tactfully done.

No one on this site can prove anything, just like no one can really disprove anything. If he wants to discuss it, let him have at it, and stay out if you're going to be condescending.

I don't know what happened, but it's not like there's not enough evidence to say he's crazy for thinking these things.

Be mature about it.

[pure_mercury]

Yes, yes it is. It's very important. They have to answer for 2,900+ counts of murder.

[ajblaise]

It's important, and my advice to all the "9/11 Truthers" is to come with cold hard logic and tone down the emotion. Basically, the idea that you are all conspiracy theory wackos is what's holding you back. So calm down and only bring up facts, which there are a good number of on your side of this argument. But with the way you present yourselves, no one wants to listen, I don't even want to listen.

[JivinJeffJones]

I get a little sick of the (predominantly leftist) tendency to attempt to exonerate murderers by blaming the West/president/Christianity/right/parents. I dunno if it's an attempt to explain away the moral evil in the world, or an attempt to befriend and placate it. It's just so predictable. Is it important who is responsible for 9/11? Is it important who is responsible for any crime? If you want to walk down the street with any degree of safety, then yes it is.

[Lateralus]

It's important to me. Vegas odds on it being GW are currently 4.1:1. I'm already in for $50.

[lowtech redneck]

People don't have to be so negative toward the OP. It was thoughtfully and tactfully done.

No one on this site can prove anything, just like no one can really disprove anything. If he wants to discuss it, let him have at it, and stay out if you're going to be condescending.

I don't know what happened, but it's not like there's not enough evidence to say he's crazy for thinking these things.

Be mature about it.

Yeah, and holocaust deniers are harmless skeptics. People who advocate conspiracy theories of this type do so either to spread some form of prejudice or else are so caught up in their own prejudice that they can't see how stupid they are being. These conspiracy theories are no different from the rumors that all Jewish WTC employees stayed home on 9/11, except thoughtless anti-Americanism is considered to be perfectly acceptable by so many people. :rolli:

[ajblaise]

People who are "anti-conspiracy theory" in general are being just as, if not more, illogical than the supporters of the most far out conspiracy theories.

[Lateralus]

People who are "anti-conspiracy theory" in general are being just as, if not more, illogical than the supporters of the most far out conspiracy theories.
There are so many scenarios where this statement is not true that it's worthless.

[ajblaise]

There are so many scenarios where this statement is not true that it's worthless.

Could you be a little less vague on this? Maybe you misunderstood it. I'm talking about people who will disbelieve a conspiracy theory, just for the fact that it's a conspiracy theory.

[reason]

Even the official story was an far-fetched conspiracy, but obviously not enough for some.

[Didums]

Both stories, the government's and the conspiracy theorists' are flawed in different ways. I see it as having to take a leap of faith to get to either side of the argument, and once you take that leap you have to ignore any evidence in favor of the opposing argument. That is why I've taken a more moderate stance regarding this issue: The government had been warned, on multiple occasions (with a thorough amount of evidence), about the upcoming attacks, but were either too incompetant to stop it or decided to plead false ignorance. Notice, in both cases, it's the Government's fault for failing to take the necessary measures to prevent the attack.

So, were they truly Stupid, or playing Stupid?

[Into It]

Ouchie, I can't believe people still throw this stuff out there.

I can't help but read the arguments like this now:

Did you know that apples are red? Bright red? Yah, obviously 9/11 was a lie.

Steel doesn't have to melt to lose structural support,
*shakes head*



I never made the claim that steel had to melt to lose structural support. Please refute the claims I made. What I did claim was that pools of melted metal WERE found, and so metal did melt.

[Into It]

Why are there only two theories that people can consider?

Even in the quote you posted, I only claimed that there are two popular theories. To my knowledge this is true. People can believe whatever they want.

[Into It]

There has not been an 'official' unbiased investigation into 9/11, taking into account all the facts.

Of course, any true investigation is going to be massively hampered, because the US government decided to ship off all the steel from WTC 1, 2, and 7 before any of it could be investigated. Destruction of evidence at the worlds biggest crime scene.



This is something I was considering bringing up. The government sold the steel immediately, and now no investigation can be made. If I would have brought this up in the original post, I would be willing to bet that 99% of the people in this forum wouldn't even believe that I was telling the truth. Which makes me want to ask, even though comments like "conspiracy theories have been done to death" are very helpful, are my claims lies or are they irrelevant?

[Into It]

I personally think the conspiracies are a little disgraceful to the people who died.

I had a hunch some people might feel this way. I personally think the evidence speaks for itself, and in this way I feel I am fighting for the victims. Does this make sense?

[Into It]

Oh stop it with the conspiracy theories. Even if the whodunnit is still a mystery, despite Osama blatantly admitting to it, you think the people in the Middle East that want to see the end of all western civilization should be left alive?


Osama has been an asset of the CIA for some time. He has extremely close connections with the Bush family, in fact I do remember reading that our president was face to face with his brother either that morning or evening. I fully believe that if key figures of our government, the president or his men, wanted to contact him after 9/11 they could have. (Remember the hospital incident?) Osama did not blatantly admit to it for quite a while if you recall, and the confession came as an answer to unrest: no evidence had connected Osama to the crime prior to the confession. It isn't unreasonable to consider that a bargain may have been struck, after all, he was never caught. And now nobody is even looking.

Edit: I forgot to answer the second half of your question. The answer is yes, they should be left alive. You do not have the right to take away a man's life because you do not like what he believes. This is the principle behind our first amendment.

[Into It]

It's important, and my advice to all the "9/11 Truthers" is to come with cold hard logic and tone down the emotion. Basically, the idea that you are all conspiracy theory wackos is what's holding you back. So calm down and only bring up facts, which there are a good number of on your side of this argument. But with the way you present yourselves, no one wants to listen, I don't even want to listen.

I don't think that I'm ranting or raving, I think that there are a number of valid points that have been raised. And at this point I've been groundlessly discredited about five times, and my points have not been adressed at all. Is my emotion really the problem here?

[Didums]

Hey Into It, it would be easier to just use the Multiquote feature to get all of the people's quotes that you are responding to into 1 post. The button right next to the "Quote" button is the Multiquote button, you click it for each post that you want to quote and then you click the Normal Quote button for the final post you want to quote and it will take all of the quotes into 1 post for you. It will make things alot easier and easier to read :)

[Oberon]

With regard to melted steel, the kinetic energy released by the buildings collapsing would have been more than enough to heat steel above the melting point.

You can heat up a nail by beating it with a hammer. Now drop one of the tallest buildings in the world on it... it's not difficult to make the logical connection.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't believe the government is competent enough to stage something like this and then cover up all of the information so neatly.

One reason the government is not this competent is that they don't have to be. They convinced plenty of people that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 even though he wasn't, and there was plenty of evidence for this for anyone who wanted to find out. If the government was behind 9/11 they'd be sloppier about it and they could still get away with the whole thing.

[ajblaise]

I don't believe the government is competent enough to stage something like this and then cover up all of the information so neatly.

I never bought this argument, whether it was on South Park or not. We can go into space and land on the moon... we can stage an attack.

[Falcarius]

Even in the quote you posted, I only claimed that there are two popular theories. To my knowledge this is true. People can believe whatever they want.

Well, 43% of Egyptians said Israel in a poll taken by WorldPublicOpinion.org. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535) Also, in the same poll 31% of Jordanians thought Israel as well.

In the world average of the WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the US government, 7 percent said Israel, and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks

Zawahiri even insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US, as he did not like it when Iran and Hezbollah gave Isreal the credit. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7361414.stm):laugh:

[Into It]

I don't believe the government is competent enough to stage something like this and then cover up all of the information so neatly.

One reason the government is not this competent is that they don't have to be. They convinced plenty of people that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 even though he wasn't, and there was plenty of evidence for this for anyone who wanted to find out. If the government was behind 9/11 they'd be sloppier about it and they could still get away with the whole thing.

This is an interesting point. In my opinion, they were extraordinarilly sloppy. Why would you destroy all of the evidence at a the biggest crime scene in America in sixty years before you've identified the culprit? I can only think of one reason.

At the Pentagon, which was the most heavily surveilled building on the planet in 2001, every single video tape that would have caught the supposed 757 crashing into it was confiscated by the FBI before the day was over. Shouldn't someone at least provide an explanation for this other than that it is "necessary for national security?" A few years later, a couple frames from one of the video cameras was finally released. You can find it on the internet; it's disappointing to say the least. The debris from the '757' itself was cleared up by the end of the day, and whatever was left was covered up by dirt. Let me state this again: dumptrucks were ordered to come and cover the entire scene with dirt. If you consider that "covering up all of the information so neatly," then we have a difference of opinion on what a neat cover-up looks like.

To touch on your opinion about the government being incapable, I agree that the government appears incompetent. But these are powerful people with strong influence over the media, (I can go further into detail about this if you would like) and they may be incompetent at solving the issues that we want them to, but the Bush Administration has been perfectly successful at carrying out their own agenda.

[ptgatsby]

I never made the claim that steel had to melt to lose structural support. Please refute the claims I made. What I did claim was that pools of melted metal WERE found, and so metal did melt.

Misread that - after hearing so many versions of this, I tend to grab the most common claims. Not many people still reference the melted steel since as far as I know, it wasn't steel at all.

[Members Only]

there was no thermite reaction (both for cleanup and before)

Traces of Thermite/Thermate were discoverd in WTC debris.

Steven Jones

[ptgatsby]

Traces of Thermite/Thermate were discoverd in WTC debris.

Steven Jones

And this relates to there being pools of steel how?

I've long since given up arguing this topic in detail. There are plenty of sites that itemize why these claims are false, all of which are easily found. His claims have been thoroughly rejected in ways that put the matter to rest for me, including actual tests, line by line discreditation, source validation and so forth. But of course, Thermite isn't used to destroy vertical support beams. It doesn't work. Heat sagging works, which is exactly the conditions that would of been present.

[heart]

People who are "anti-conspiracy theory" in general are being just as, if not more, illogical than the supporters of the most far out conspiracy theories.

Yes they are, but it is an excellent way to shut people up and place limits on what is allowed to be discussed on an issue. For some people it places limits on what a person will even allow themselves to think about. It's fine to use logic, but one still needs to be sure that the facts you're resting your logic on have not been distorted or have missing pieces that might have a difference. And also just because something might make you feel scared to believe or might make others laugh snidely doesn't mean it isn't true either.(I mean general "you" here. not directed at anyone personally)

[Members Only]

There are plenty of sites that itemize why these claims are false, all of which are easily found.

Link?

And please not to popular mechanics, since its debunking has been debunked.

[millerm277]

One thing I want to make clear is that this statement, while true, does not mean much: "Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. A significant quantity of melted steel was found in pools at all three of the fallen World Trade Center buildings. Steel CANNOT burn below 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. I believe the minimum temperature it can melt at is 2777 F. Jet fuel does not burn above 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. I believe the maximum temperature that jet fuel can burn is 1517 F. This discrepancy is too large for any fluke to have taken place."

That's true. Do you really think the only thing burning in the Twin Towers was the jet fuel? Did it occur to you that there are lots of flammable things that CAN burn that hot inside an office building, and once the fire has been started by the jet fuel....

Also. In order for the towers to fall...the steel doesn't have to melt. It is weakened at a far lower temperature than it melts at, and if you recall, once they did fall, it burned in that pile of rubble for weeks, which is the most likely explanation for why there would be pools of melted steel. (assuming they exist).

[Oberon]

And this relates to there being pools of steel how?


Actually, if it were true, thermite would directly relate to the presence of pools of steel. Thermite is a mixture of ferric oxide and powdered metallic aluminum. Its reaction requires a very high-temperature ignition source (it's commonly started in the lab with a piece of magnesium ribbon, which in turn has to be lit by a gas torch), but the results of the reaction are A) lots of heat, and B) liquid metallic iron. Liquid metallic iron in the presence of lots of structural steel would result in puddles of a low-grade steel mixture.

However, I still believe that the kinetic energy of the collapsing towers would have been more than enough to also produce molten steel.

[ptgatsby]

However, I still believe that the kinetic energy of the collapsing towers would have been more than enough to also produce molten steel.

It wouldn't, unfortunately. The amount of kinetic energy that would nee to be transferred to a vertical support beam wouldn't be sufficient to melt it (and by a pretty large margin). In particular, as the collapse progressed, the weight and duration of friction would increase (assuming stationary supports), which means it should be the lower parts that show heat fatigue - however, nothing like that happened (and wouldn't be expected to, from what I understand.)

Good point about the thermite, however. Anyway, it ignores the two major points - first, thermite is not used on vertical supports, which would be necessary, and two, there was no steel pools. The 'pools' were unidentified metal. Most of the theory comes from pictures before the collapse, along with a whole lot of speculation, and a lot of ignoring of things like aluminum/building matertial, and even similar pools found on crashed planes in the open.

The use of thermite would be redundant, not to mention would require huge amounts, directly applied, with large force, using technology that hasn't been developped, against internal building supports, done in a way that has been proven ineffective.

It'd be more effective to use napalm or any other longer-burning, high temperature "blast furnace" material over a larger surface area. Or jet fuel. The problem is sagging, not cutting - cutting is highly ineffective on vertical support beams.

[lowtech redneck]

I never bought this argument, whether it was on South Park or not. We can go into space and land on the moon... we can stage an attack.

As an apologists for conspiracy theories in general, thats an unusual statement to make. You know the rumors....and after all, its technically possible that everyone could have been fooled by some elaborate and insanely complicated hoax in order to raise American morale during a low-point of the Cold War.

Besides, its a faulty comparison; no one is arguing that the American government lacks the technical expertise to destroy a building, even through such unnecessarily bizarre means. Rational people are simply suggesting that conspiracies involve multiple actors, and any slight fuck-up or moral impulse by one of them would screw over all of them. Even assuming there were that many sociopaths in government who knew without a doubt that other conspirators were equally sociopathic enough not to tell everyone what "really happened," there are simply too many opportunities for things to go wrong to make such an conspiracy an acceptable risk. This is why conspiracy theories are almost always bogus paranoid fantasies (with real-life consequences, unfortunately), and why actual conspiracies almost never work.

[Into It]

That's true. Do you really think the only thing burning in the Twin Towers was the jet fuel? Did it occur to you that there are lots of flammable things that CAN burn that hot inside an office building, and once the fire has been started by the jet fuel....

Also. In order for the towers to fall...the steel doesn't have to melt. It is weakened at a far lower temperature than it melts at, and if you recall, once they did fall, it burned in that pile of rubble for weeks, which is the most likely explanation for why there would be pools of melted steel. (assuming they exist).


I just wrote a response to this. It was pretty good, and it took over an hour. I had to log in again, so it got deleted. So, instead of retyping all the new 9/11 evidence, I'm just going to summarize and then move on. Nobody can truly define all of the culprits, and I don't believe we will ever be able to. I only recommend that everyone take a look at WTC building 7, a 42 story building that collapsed by "fire" on 9/11. Steel structured buildings do not collapse by fire. None have. There were fires on 4 floors of this large building, and they weren't even large fires. This was a textbook demolition, and you only need to watch it fall to see that. Controlled demolitions always destroy the center support first so the building will collapse in on itself and keep from damaging nearby structures. Nature is chaotic; it would not produce this exact same effect. Especially not with just a small amount of fire. I can't provide an explanation for this collapse, and the Federal Government has swept it under the rug so to speak.

I appreciate that you have not been slinging mud. This shows an openness to accept the possibility that things may not be how you have been percieving them. I personally believe this is a mark of intelligence.


There is a more broad and complex web of issues concerning money and power that I do not have time to explain at the moment. This is where it gets weird and almost unbelievable. There are still people who do not know that our President and other big-wigs travel to the depths of the Redwood Forest to don black and red robes and perform mock human sacrifices by burning to a large stone owl. There are people who do not know that this has been going on for a very long time, with many of our presidents involved. Unfortunately, most people have just not had access to this information. At this point, that information is not very useful to you. I am only letting you taste this so that you know that what is coming is bizarre and requires an open mind to understand fully.

Now is where you may begin slinging mud. But I have a feeling most of you will not. I'm going to save this new information for a new thread.

Conspiracy:
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose

I can prove that two or more people are meeting in secret illegally and throwing around ideas. So call me a "Conspiracy Researcher" instead, because that is a little more accurate.