I, like many on this forum, don't entirely buy the offical explanation of everything that went on on 9/11. However, there are some pretty outlandish theories that try to explain some of the gaps in the official explanation by introducing alternative gaps.

The subject has been raised as a peripheral issue on several other threads recently and I just wondered if the time was right to give it it's own thread and talk about it (politely TCL and Shake!) openly and rationally.

So the official accepted story is that 4 planes were hijacked by islamic terrorists who have been named and identiifed. 2 of these planes were flown in to the twin towers causing a catastrophic failure of the steel structure and the consequent collapses.

A third plane was flown into the side of the Pentagon, causing some structural damage and some loss of life.

A fourth plane was brought down by the actions of it's passengers after the hijackers had taken control, and this prevented it being flown into a 3rd target.

What are the gaps in the explanation that people are aware of, and what are the explanations that you find plausible?

 

Well, I've heard that Bush took the ENTIRE month of August off...is it any wonder the attack happened in September?

And I've read some of the 9/11 report. There were a LOT of warning signs. I just wonder why no one listened.

As far as conspiracy theories, I've heard it said that Bush and Cheney planned to invade Iraq anyways. 9/11 just gave them a more plausible reason.

For anyone who didn't hear it, there was a speech Bush gave once the "war on terror" shifted from trying to find Bin Laden (still don't get why we're not concentrating on that......if he was, in fact, responsible) where he basically says he's going after Saddam b/c he tried to kill Bush1.

I just have a LOT of issues with the way the 9/11 aftermath was handled and I think Bush is mostly to blame (well, Bush's government). I think they have their own agenda. I mean Bush declared war on "whoever's responsible for this" HOURS after it happened. Not even knowing who was responsible. What if it had been another superpower? You can't exactly take that back!

 

Honest answer from me?

I really don't know.......but...I would LOVE to find out.

 

I have all sorts of questions about this, but here's a sampling:

1. Why did it take so long for NORAD to track the planes after they turned off their transponders? That's what NORAD does for a living -- enemy aircraft/missiles don't have transponders either. Why were so few fighters available on that particular day?

2. How did the plane that hit the Pentagon get through that buildings defense system, which is designed to prevent such an attack?

3. What happened to the videos taken by witnesses to the Pentagon attack, which were confiscated by the government immediately? Why have they never been made public?

4. Why did the Secret Service not immediately hustle George Bush from that classroom when the second plane struck? That is THEIR job...how could they have known that the President, whose whereabouts had been publicized, was not a target?

5. Why did the 9/11 Commission refrain from even asking questions about possible U.S. Government complicity in, or at the very least, foreknowledge of the attack? Why were those who might have knowledge of such a conspiracy or evidence that supports it not even questioned?

As I said, I don't have answers...only questions. And the government hasn't even attempted to answer them.

 

Just wanted to add one more point: Why are these theories about what really happened on 9/11 referred to as "conspiracy theories", when the official story is not?

It seems to me that to believe that a rag-tag bunch of Arab terrorists could enter the country, take flight-training, elude airport security and any other detection, board four different planes, armed with box-cutters, and carry out a coordinated attack on the WTC and the Pentagon, without anyone whose job it is to prevent such a thing (the FAA, NORAD, the CIA, the FBI, etc.) actually DOING their job, is to believe in a HUGELY unlikely conspiracy. And they were WARNED!

 

I have to add another to Kimi's list:

I can understand the planes that hit WTC. But isn't Washington airspace restricted? Wouldn't a "bogie" like that have set off SOME kind of alarms?

 

yikes . . .

more boogeyman nonsense.

why does anyone fail to do their job from time to time? Perhaps because they're human. The supposed 'warnings' went back many years - identifying them as such after the fact is easy . . . beforehand, they seem really far-fetched. What wonderful clarity us civilians have without a single moment of life experience connected to any of the related agencies mentioned. Well, the beauty of asking leading questions designed to stir up conspiratorial thought does have the advantage of being un-refutable - must be awfully satisfying to have such penetrating intellectual powers, eh?

 

I completely agree. And as I said, most of my issues are with how the aftermath was handled. What happened happened. I think the "public" just wants a WHY and Bush has been too busy chasing after Saddam to give satisfactory answers. If the answer are "that guy called in sick" or "that building hadn't been updated since it was built", fine. But give us an answer.

I don't think it's really a matter of finding someone to blame. It was a tradgic day and I think a lot of people are left wondering and worrying. And Bush is pre-occupied with Saddam using the mass fear and insecurity 9/11 caused to justify what he's doing now...instead of assuring the public that it's far less likely to happen again.

 

I don't believe all that conspiracy stuff!!! It is what it is, and I hope and pray that we, or any other country, don't have to experience that horror again!!! I will never forget watching those buildings fall with so many trapped in them.. ..Huge mistakes were made, and I hope we never let our guard down like that again!!!

 

Especially since that plane entered D.C. airspace a long time after the two planes hit the WTC towers.

 

Sweetie, this wasn't one person not doing his job. Nor two. Nor three. This was a LOT of people not doing their job. And NOBODY got sacked afterwards.

And by the way, these questions were raised, in several cases, by people who DO have appropriate life experience. Me, I'm just a dumb girl trying to get some answers, and failing miserably. I notice you didn't answer them either.

 

Wow, Kimiko! You've got fangs today! I'm glad I haven't crossed you.

I miss that fight in you. You've been a bit blase lately, I think.

 

Well, sugar - you know the old saying . . . a bird in the water looks before it hesitates and then - uhhhmmmm :? ok, never mind the platitude this time.

How do you know no one got sacked afterwards? How do you know the people who raised these questions didn't get their answers - and simply didn't like them? How do you know you're not smarter than the entire lot of analysts employed in any of those agencies? Do you really expect to get full disclosure on a situation like this? If so, isn't that a tad naive for someone of your sophistication? Being a low-grade capitalist - I am certainly not privvy to any of the "answers" that supposedly lurk in the dark corners . . . they may not even tell me as they haul me off to the re-education camp.

By the way, condescension gives me a chubby

 

She's not the only one.

 

Personally I think people who would think that their own country would do this to its citizens makes me sick. And they insult and disrespect the memory of those who lost their lives that day.

You can bet your sweet ass if it happened on the watch of a Democrat these people wouldn't be coming up with these conspiracy theories.

Bush may be as stupid as they come, but to kill innocent civilans like this? No. And my heart breaks every time I hear someone say those planes were empty. Sad for the families of those who WERE on those planes. Its bad enough they have to deal with their loss, but to have people deny they even existed is really disgusting.

Shame on you.

Just face it: Your country isn't as strong as you thought it was. We were vulnerable, and there are people out there who took advantage of it. Period.

I can't say anymore on this topic, it breaks my heart too much.

 

The most patriotic thing you can do in a democracy is disagree.

I don't believe we were attacked by terrorists, and the story of the plane being brought down by passengers was already proven to be complete bullshit.

 

Ok, so a few different points of view already. I'm not setting myself up as an expert here by any means but as I started the thread I suppose it would be rude not to comment on what's been added.

To Kimiko and Old Tool, I've heard people compare 9-11 to Chernobyl, in as much as that Chernobyl was able to go the way it did because a whole series of unlikely events all happened on the same day. Some were equipment failure, some were human error, some were just dumb luck. But because they all happened on the same day, tragic events that ensued. Similarly, it's possible that on 9-11 the same thing happened. HOWEVER, the big difference with 9-11 is surely that if those coincidences, those breakdowns in procedure, those human errors, had happened on 9-10 or 9-12 there wouldn't have been hijackers trying to do what they did. This add's a whole other degree of plausible coincidence to the events. It could also indicate that the procedures to defend the USA from this type of attack were unfit for purpose already and it would have succeeded on any day. I'd just like to know if that's the case. So far I haven't seen any reports of that.

To Rockprincess, I agree that the important thing about 9-11 is to learn from it so it can't happen again, which is exactly why the truth needs to be known. It's kind of pointless reacting and altering security measures to respond to something that wasn't the cause of an event like that.

To Leila, some people do deny that there were any passengers on the planes. I don't. Those people died on 9-11 because of the actions of the people who took the planes and crashed them. To question how this happened or what could be done about stopping it is not, as I see it , dishonouring their memory, but I grant you it is going to be upsetting for their families. If any of them are reading this thread and are offended I apologise for that offence, and extend my sincere condolences for your loss.


Generally, I have read and seen reports that Bush's immediate reaction was that someone had to pay and it shuld be Saddam. I don't know if that's true. I wasn't there. Most of the people who were aren't going to say so.

Also, I have read reports that the burning temperature of jet fuel is too low to soften the steel used for the construction of the WTC towers, this from structural architects and metalurgists who should know. Again, I could accept that this was just plain wrong if some evidence had been provided to show that the structural steel melted or softened and buckled due to the fire but the steel was removed from Ground Zero very early on in the clearance and reycled before it could be examined by the FBI. Again this could have been an error but it seems like a pretty big thing to go wrong in such a high profile investigation.

I'm not a structural engineer or a matalurgist. Anyone out there have any better insight into this?

 

Hell Old Tool you don't lurk in the dark corners you live there. Shouldn't you stick to micro analysations of minute social interaction for those socially challenged.

Its a lot easier than chasing down facts and trying to get answers and you must be a pretty low crade capitalist if you don't know to get the truth all you have to do is follow the money, and there is a trail of it as wide as the Missippi between the Bush's et. al. and Saudi Arabia.

Another pretty pressing question to me is if the bulk of the people who commited the actual murderous acts are from Sadi Arabia how come all we did was invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't we get most of our oil from Saudi Arabia?

 

I don't know about most, but certainly a lot. And the point here to me is that, despite there being a lot of Religious unrest being stirred up in Saudi (without the Saudi government doing a great deal to suppress it), and despite a lot of terrorists being recruited there, and despite most of the named suspects for the 9-11 acts being Saudi, the USA chose to go after someone else and didn't push the issue with the Saudis in any overt way.

Granted the Al Qaida training abses in Afghanistan and the rumoured whereabouts of Osama made Afghanistan a target too, but Suadi, given it's involvement, seems to have escaped the wrath of the Bush administration.