What really happened on 9/11?

[Scott]

I see that there's a thread here that's somewhat similar to this one, namely Was 9/11 an inside job?. The reason I preferred to make a new thread is that I think that thread is too narrowly focused. The very first comment in that thread by Jack makes my point, when he claims that he thinks the Saudis did it. This would mean that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but it would -still- be different from the official narrative concerning 9/11. This thread is for any reasoned theory as to what actually happened on 9/11. For my part, I do believe that some powerful people in the U.S. government were involved in 9/11, but I welcome to arguments for other theories, including the official one that Osama bin Laden was the Mastermind behind it all. In another thread whose subject was not 9/11 but rather deal with U.S. government censorship of news, I started discussing 9/11, and I linked to the following video to make my case that the official narrative of what happened that day is full of holes:

He asserted that there were large holes in the video, so I asked him to name one. Here was his response:

It only relies on one investigation to claim that the investigation wasn't complete. Multiple investigations were done.

I'm -guessing- that you're referring to the following part of the video above:
**
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes [link in original to a video], the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell [link in original to a video] into the FBI's lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link in original to a video], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.
**

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com


I imagine Corbett meant that it was the only official investigation that was in charge of investigating all the elements of 9/11, not just specific parts of it.

It claims nothing was reported on Building 7.

No, it claims that the 9/11 Commission failed to mention WTC Building 7, which it did.

That is untrue since again there were multiple investigations including a rather extensive engineering one that shows the reason the building collapsed.

The only explanations I've seen that provide reasonable explanations for why the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed are not official ones. I see that there's atleast 2 threads here that deal with one or both of the Twin Towers, so clearly there is still dissent on what happened to these buildings. The threads are here:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...eering-truth-nanothermite-brought-down-towers

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

 

[Hawkeye10]

Was Deep State as ignorant and as incompetent as they claim that they were?









I do not know.

 

[Scott]

Was Deep State as ignorant and as incompetent as they claim that they were?

I do not know.

I think the video I linked to in the opening post has a good response to that. I included a bit of it in the opening post, but I think an expansion is good here. I've removed some of the links in the original document that are no longer active or that went to videos, as this forum seems to put youtube videos up even if they are just linked to in text.

**
The investigation [9/11 Commission] was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link to video in original], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration [Link to video in original] and as for Bush and Cheney...well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret [Link to video in original], off the record, not under oath [Link to video in original] and behind closed doors. It didn't bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of "little practical significance". Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims' family members' questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don't think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that's OK because it probably wasn't important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that's OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7's collapse, but that's OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would "jeopardize public safety".

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that's OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.
**

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He asserted that there were large holes in the video, so I asked him to name one. Here was his response:

Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
It only relies on one investigation to claim that the investigation wasn't complete. Multiple investigations were done.
I'm -guessing- that you're referring to the following part of the video above:
**
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes [link in original to a video], the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell [link in original to a video] into the FBI's lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

That's funny since I watched a few hours of this live when it happened. News anchors were not reporting within minutes that it was Osama Bin Laden. In fact, no one considered it a terrorist attack until the second plane hit. It was thought to be a small plane. The first plan hit at 8:46. The second plane hit at 9:03. You will notice the video does NOT show a single news anchor claiming Osama was responsible while the towers are still standing. Instead they have dubbed a voice over the video saying "Osama Bin Ladin." The fact that you are not able to see that shows you to be gullible beyond belief. Where is your real time video of any news anchor claiming it was Bin Laden before the second tower was hit? Where is the video of any pundit claiming it was Bin Laden on the morning of 9/11? Do you always accept claims without evidence?
By the way, why does the video use a photoshopped image of Bin Laden on someone else's body receiving dialysis? Shouldn't that throw up red flags as to the veracity of the claims?

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link in original to a video], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.

Wow... Look at all those claims and then the conclusion that is pretended to be a fact.
The report wasn't released until a month after it was originally supposed to be complete. That doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest. It also doesn't mean it was delayed since there was no requirement to finish by a certain date. Almost all investigations are not completed on time because of factors that don't prove a conspiracy.
The commission asked for funding and didn't receive all that it asked for. That doesn't mean it was underfunded and certainly doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest.

As with all conspiracy theories, those promoting the theory take a couple of facts, then throw in bullshit and claim that proves their theory is true. Why do you believe the bullshit? Are you unable to think critically? Do you not understand the meanings of words?

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com


I imagine Corbett meant that it was the only official investigation that was in charge of investigating all the elements of 9/11, not just specific parts of it.

If that was what Corbett meant then that was Corbett lying to you. The 9/11 commission had a specific task and that task was not to investigate all elements of 9/11.
The report can be found here.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf
Their mission as given to them can be found on page xv of the preface. They were looking at the facts and circumstances of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. WTC 7 was not attacked by terrorists. It was collateral damage as a result of the twin towers falling. The report also doesn't name the businesses located in the twin towers or provide the names of most of the people that died that day. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Only an idiot would argue that failure to include things means it didn't happen or it shows some conspiracy.

No, it claims that the 9/11 Commission failed to mention WTC Building 7, which it did.

I guess because they didn't use those exact words then you could argue they didn't mention "WTC Building 7." That however would be a lie that the building itself is never mentioned since they refer to it as "7 WTC in the actual report"

Here's an interesting fact. Your video claims one of the pilots had problems flying a Cesna. "Cesna" is not mentioned once in the report. Why does Corbett make up things that are not in the report and deny things that are? Why would you rely on someone that gets simple facts wrong and is lying to you?

The only explanations I've seen that provide reasonable explanations for why the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed are not official ones. I see that there's atleast 2 threads here that deal with one or both of the Twin Towers, so clearly there is still dissent on what happened to these buildings. The threads are here:

Really? Are you that ill informed about this topic that you are unaware of the official NIST report on WTC 7?
https://www.nist.gov/publications/f...building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0


You can find idiots to argue anything including the fact that birds are not real. Because they are willing to argue their conspiracy theories doesn't mean they have valid arguments. The fact that you fall for the arguments of those idiots only points to you being an idiot yourself.

All conspiracy theories require that the believers refuse to accept or to ignore facts that would show the preponderance of the evidence supports a better theory. As we see, you are ignorant of many facts. Educate yourself or admit you are an idiot. It's up to you.

 

[Controlled Opposition]

 

[archives]

Really? We’re going back to the conspiracy angle on 9/11? Is Sandy Hook next? The Moon Landing? Is Jim Morrison still alive?

What’s the point? Monday morning quarterbacking two decades later after nearly anything is possible, especially when one uses video to frame the conspiracy

 

[Controlled Opposition]

Really? We’re going back to the conspiracy angle on 9/11? Is Sandy Hook next? The Moon Landing? Is Jim Morrison still alive?

What’s the point? Monday morning quarterbacking two decades later after nearly anything is possible, especially when one uses video to frame the conspiracy

The term, "Conspiracy Theory" was coined in 1964, by the CIA to counter the fact that the majority of Americans did not believe the Warren Report. The majority of Americans still do not.

America was murdered in 1963.

That is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's interesting to go read the actual report.
It was commissioned to be done by a 911 truther group. That is the first thing to make it suspect.
Then when you start to read the report, you start to realize how many assumptions are made.
They note that 4 other engineering studies were done and all reached different conclusions as to failure that caused the collapse.

Then this study proceeds to start making its own assumptions. A major one is they didn't have the drawings for floors 1 and 2 of WTC so they used floor 3 as the bottom of their model.
However, Floor 1 and Floor 2 could only be partially finished due
to missing drawings for the electrical substation. The substation was two stories, and WTC 7’s
third floor became the roof of the substation when it was built over the substation. The
substation’s roof was removed down to existing steel supports, and, presumably, new decking
was integrated at the same level (33-ft 4-inches) and a slab was poured. Therefore, we used the
roof of the substation as the bottom floor of the model.
Then there are these approximations.
The concrete decks of Floors 12 and 13 were approximated using shell elements. The
frames were approximated using beam elements.


They admit that this is a point that could affect calculations. A minor change in how a point reacts can have a huge impact on the results. The NIST modeling assumed the beams sheared compared to the spring model used here.
It may be argued that pin connections may be stiffer than a spring and, in
some cases, depending on loading with moment transfer, it may be less stiff.

The computer model included spring stiffnesses to simulate each
connection type.

Basically, they are simply saying they made different assumptions than the NIST did and came up with different results. That isn't surprising since small changes in force in one point in a complex structure with multiple force points can completely change final force calculations. This doesn't prove that the WTC was brought down by thermite.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The term, "Conspiracy Theory" was coined in 1964, by the CIA to counter the fact that the majority of Americans did not believe the Warren Report. The majority of Americans still do not.

America was murdered in 1963.

That is not the subject of this thread.

LOL. I doubt the majority of Americans even know that the Warren report is let alone don't believe it.

 

[Scott]

LOL. I doubt the majority of Americans even know that the Warren report is let alone don't believe it.

I think that the subject of JFK's assassination is an important subject, but it's clearly not the subject of this thread, so I've made a new thread for it, and have responded to your post there:

The John F. Kennedy Assassination | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

9/11 conspiracy theories fall into two main categories:

They let it happen
Elements of the US government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, but deliberately did nothing to stop them.

They made it happen
Elements of the US government were involved in planning and executing the attacks (this is by far the most popular category, for obvious reasons).

The first question at this point must be WHY? Did the USG have a plausible motive for wanting the Twin Towers, and as much of the Pentagon as possible, destroyed?

The usual explanation is that the Bush-Cheney gang needed an excuse to invade Iraq. So they carried out the 9/11 attacks - or at the very least let them happen – and pinned them on 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 0 Iraqis.

Convinced? Then we can go ahead and speculate how they may have done it.
What you might call the standard ‘truther’ theory of controlled demolition is here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

9/11 conspiracy theories fall into two main categories:

They let it happen
Elements of the US government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, but deliberately did nothing to stop them.

They made it happen
Elements of the US government were involved in planning and executing the attacks (this is by far the most popular category, for obvious reasons).

The first question at this point must be WHY? Did the USG have a plausible motive for wanting the Twin Towers, and as much of the Pentagon as possible, destroyed?

The usual explanation is that the Bush-Cheney gang needed an excuse to invade Iraq. So they carried out the 9/11 attacks - or at the very least let them happen – and pinned them on 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 0 Iraqis.

Convinced? Then we can go ahead and speculate how they may have done it.
What you might call the standard ‘truther’ theory of controlled demolition is here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

ROFLMAO..
The first question should be: Why did my cat want the US to invade Iraq?
My cat did nothing to stop the attacks.
My cat was clearly planning something. Cats do that.

Convinced? Then we can go ahead and speculate how my cat did it.

Occams razor cuts your argument in to little pieces.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What you might call the standard ‘truther’ theory of controlled demolition is here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

I am familiar with the controlled demolition bullshit. It is all bullshit since it ignores that controlled demolitions require setting of charges on columns. There is no way to do that without being noticed in an occupied building. It takes multiple days if not weeks. It requires that all the columns be accessed. Those columns are behind finished walls. They are not out in the open.

Because there are different ways to demolish a building doesn't mean we have to choose one. We choose the one that is most likely based on ALL the evidence.
1. We know there was a fire.
2. We know that the building was damaged by other buildings falling down next to it.
3. We know that when the towers fell they created a seismic wave and we know that seismic waves can do structural damage to buildings.
4. We have no evidence of any or all the steel columns being accessed in the building in the previous 10 years.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Occams razor cuts your argument in to little pieces.

It isn't my argument, lol. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Check out the link I gave.


ADDED

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

In my posts at that link I showed that the 'standard' truther theory would require 10,000 - 20,000 separate cutter charges to demolish each tower.

Presumably truthers believe this is possible (if they even realize that it's implied by their theory - which most of them do not).

I DON'T believe it's possible.

 

[Scott]

He asserted that there were large holes in the video, so I asked him to name one. Here was his response:

**
It only relies on one investigation to claim that the investigation wasn't complete. Multiple investigations were done.
**

Source:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...moved-just-rebranded-RT&p=5417783#post5417783

I'm -guessing- that you're referring to the following part of the video above:
**
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes [link in original to a video], the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell [link in original to a video] into the FBI's lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

That's funny since I watched a few hours of this live when it happened.

I didn't watch it for hours, but I also watched for a bit live when it happened. Back then, I believed the official narrative myself.

News anchors were not reporting within minutes that it was Osama Bin Laden.

Apparently you missed the CBS broadcast that day, which Corbett's article linked to. It's here:

Osama Bin Laden's name comes up at around 4 minutes, 10 seconds in.

In fact, no one considered it a terrorist attack until the second plane hit.

Ah, I think I see your confusion now. Corbett didn't mention it, but it seems clear that he meant within minutes after the -second- alleged aircraft, not the first.

It was thought to be a small plane. The first plan hit at 8:46. The second plane hit at 9:03. You will notice the video does NOT show a single news anchor claiming Osama was responsible while the towers are still standing.

Corbett's video doesn't, no, but the CBS video he links to, and which I've linked to above, certainly does.

 

[Scott]

By the way, why does the video use a photoshopped image of Bin Laden on someone else's body receiving dialysis? Shouldn't that throw up red flags as to the veracity of the claims?

I'm guessing it hasn't occurred to you that they did that to give people an idea of the poor health of Osama Bin Laden at the time of the attacks. The evidence that the U.S. not only knew about Osama bin Laden's condition, but actually treated him in one of their hospitals abroad a few months prior to 9/11 can be seen in articles such as this one:

Report: bin Laden treated at US hospital | upi.com

Quoting from the article:

**
PARIS, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- A CIA agent allegedly met with suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in July, while the Saudi underwent treatment for kidney problems at an American hospital in Dubai, France's Le Figaro newspaper reported Wednesday.

Bin Laden reportedly checked into the American Hospital Dubai, a 100-bed, acute-care general hospital, July 4 and stayed until July 14. He arrived from Quetta, Pakistan, accompanied by his personal doctor and a close aide -- possibly Ayman el Zawahiri, a leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad, now bin Laden's right hand man, the newspaper said.

Le Figaro cited a "professional partner" linked to the hospital's management as its source.
**

As to the source of information, mediabiasfactcheck.com has no problems with upi.com, for those who trust its ratings (I definitely don't):
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/united-press-international-upi/


There are other articles on OBL's stay in the American Hospital in Dubai. Here's one:

Bin Laden's Stay in an American Hospital in July, 2001. He Was in "Our" Hands, but Nobody Cared. | garynorth.com

 

[Scott]

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link in original to a video], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.
**

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com

Wow... Look at all those claims and then the conclusion that is pretended to be a fact. The report wasn't released until a month after it was originally supposed to be complete. That doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest. It also doesn't mean it was delayed since there was no requirement to finish by a certain date. Almost all investigations are not completed on time because of factors that don't prove a conspiracy.

Neither I nor Corbett said that the the investigation report taking an extra meant that a conspiracy was proven. Corbett doesn't actually mention the completion time of the report at all in the quote above. He -does- mention that the investigation was delayed, however, and he links to an article with evidence that this was happening. The article is here:

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation | cryptome.org

I'll quote the introduction:

**
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2003

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation

Documents and Interviews Are Subject Of Tense Talks as Tight Deadline Looms

By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- For the past seven months, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission, has been looking into the events leading up to the 2001 attacks.

But so far the probers have made little progress. The commission is embroiled in tense negotiations over the level of access it will have to White House documents and the federal personnel it wants to interview. Investigators have received only a small portion of the documents they are seeking and have just begun conducting interviews within the last week, according to commission spokesman Al Felzenberg.

That means that the commission may not be able to complete an exhaustive investigation before its deadline next May, according to some of its 10 commissioners and others familiar with its work. The commission has almost 60 staffers, many of whom have clearances to see classified documents. At their disposal is a secure facility at a secret location so that they can read those documents. And they have a $14 million budget to last until May. But from the commission's inception, commissioners and others say, the White House has put obstacles in its way.
**

The commission asked for funding and didn't receive all that it asked for. That doesn't mean it was underfunded and certainly doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest.

I agree that not giving the commission the funding it asked for doesn't prove anything, but it's more than just not giving the commission the money it wanted. As Wikipedia points out:

**
The Bush Administration has further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million),[8] and by giving the commission a very short deadline.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#Henry_Kissinger

 

[Scott]

I imagine Corbett meant that it was the only official investigation that was in charge of investigating all the elements of 9/11, not just specific parts of it.

If that was what Corbett meant then that was Corbett lying to you. The 9/11 commission had a specific task and that task was not to investigate all elements of 9/11.
The report can be found here.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf
Their mission as given to them can be found on page xv of the preface. They were looking at the facts and circumstances of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. WTC 7 was not attacked by terrorists. It was collateral damage as a result of the twin towers falling. The report also doesn't name the businesses located in the twin towers or provide the names of most of the people that died that day. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I imagine you know that the notion that WTC 7 was just collateral damage, rather than the result of a controlled demolition is something that still hasn't been settled.

Only an idiot would argue that failure to include things means it didn't happen or it shows some conspiracy.

Again with the ad hominems -.-. You really should try to stop using them so much.

 

[Scott]

9/11 conspiracy theories fall into two main categories:

They let it happen
Elements of the US government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, but deliberately did nothing to stop them.

They made it happen
Elements of the US government were involved in planning and executing the attacks (this is by far the most popular category, for obvious reasons).

You're forgetting the third category, which Corbett illustrated in the video that I linked to in the opening post, mainly "It was all Osama's fault".

The first question at this point must be WHY? Did the USG have a plausible motive for wanting the Twin Towers, and as much of the Pentagon as possible, destroyed?

The usual explanation is that the Bush-Cheney gang needed an excuse to invade Iraq. So they carried out the 9/11 attacks - or at the very least let them happen – and pinned them on 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 0 Iraqis.

Convinced? Then we can go ahead and speculate how they may have done it.

I've found that it's generally easier to see what was done then it figure out why it was done. That being said, I do believe that the attacks were orchestrated in order to further the goals of the military industrial complex. Interestingly, the pilot episode of a short lived X-files spinoff series called "The Lone Gunmen" (pun on the official JFK assassination theory of Oswald being a lone guman) that has a terrorist group attempting to crash a passenger aircraft into one of the Twin Towers by remote control. Interestingly, the episode aired months before 9/11. Even more interestingly, there is evidence that remote controlled aircraft were involved in 9/11 as well. There's a fandom page on the subject:
https://the-lone-gunmen.fandom.com/wiki/Pre_9/11_controversy

Here's a clip from the episode:

What you might call the standard ‘truther’ theory of controlled demolition is here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

I actually linked to your thread at the bottom of my opening post. I posted in 9/11 threads for years a while back, so I'm certainly familiar with a lot of the material. I may take a closer look at your thread later.

 

[Controlled Opposition]

Follow the money.