9/11 Was an Inside Job

[Bunz]

Andy,
Let me try to wrap my twisted little mind around your post. Are you suggesting that Iraq/Saddam had an active role in 9-11?

 

[Andy]

Physics... every time.

Hi Andy,
A few things, firstly, what damaged the basement walls, well I would venture to say the 110 story building collapsing and being exposed to forces it was not meant to handle.

THe photo of the woman in the hole, I have seen, and I am not convinced it isnt doctored. That is also another problem I have with quite a few of the suspicious photos. Especially of the wreckage and rubble. No way for me to verify the authenticity.

SLURRY WALLS
You must not be familiar with the slurry walls. No problem. The slurry walls hold back the Hudson river. They are 'in the basement' but not under the twin towers... per say.

The Slurry wall surrounds the entire complex which includes buildings 1,2,3 and 6 of the WTC. Basically 9 whole blocks. They are 75 feet deep, and have 7 complete levels, most of which was parking garage.

The Slurry walls are reinforced by tie backs that go outward from the wall into the surrounding soil. The Slurry walls hold back the river, which would flood that whole area otherwise. They are not load baring in that sense, as they do not hold up any buildings. Further, none of the walls are directly under either tower. They are 3 feet thick, have a 22-ton steel frames in them, and our incased in concrete.

If the buildings had fallen from a pancake collapse, as the official story suggests, the collapse would be localized to the footprint of the building. As in, the force of falling debris would have been directed nearly straight down. Directly beneath the buildings is not the Slurry walls.

So we have a law of physics broken again. A force directed straight down, somehow went laterally once it went 50 feet below ground level, and somehow still had enough kinetic energy left, to damage a 3 foot thick, 22 foot wide, slab of concrete, reinforced by 22 tons of steel and tie-backs.

You can't tell me you don't see some sort of problem with that. On the other hand, the core supports of the towers MUST be blown out in order to cause a collapse of the buildings. If large explosives were used, this force would move laterally to begin with, as will as vertically until it reached the first above ground level... again which explains the lobby being blown out.

SIDE NOTE
While I'm at it, another point just occurred to me. Back to the official story. We have the concrete floor slabs, breaking all those bolts and welds simultaneously, falling on the floor below, and breaking that floor loose to continue the chain reaction... a pancake collapse.

But wait a second... The instant that even the first floor broke loose... what would cause the support beams to fall? They just lost their primary load! Even if the steel was at 25% strength, the main load they were designed to hold up, just let go!

There is NO logical reason for the frame of the building to come down. Under the pancake theory, we should have had a shell of a building still standing with no floors in it.

Every time I look at this, the official story doesn't hold up to physics... every single time. Either those planes didn't drop those buildings, or we need to have a controlled demolition of the public schools I was taught at, and the college(s) I attended. Because everything they told me is wrong then.

WOMAN
Ok, the find the video from the helicopter, because she was waving at them. It wasn't doctored for sure. News crews do not randomly zoom in on nothing, so that later on a woman can be doctored into the video. Trust me, she was there, she was alive, she was real.

 

[Andy]

Of course... not?

Andy,
Let me try to wrap my twisted little mind around your post. Are you suggesting that Iraq/Saddam had an active role in 9-11?

sigh...
I am saying that the evidence... does in fact suggest... if not prove... that Saddam/Iraq... was very much involved in 9/11. I'm not even sure why this is a surprise. Saddam's open support of terrorist activities prior to 9/11 was very well documented, and not just against US targets.

I fully believe that Saddam likely provided the training and possibly the funds, while Osama clearly recruited the attackers and the mastermind to plan it. You don't really think that the ability to take over and fly a plane was learned from inside a cave do you?

If anything I'm amazed that some think we picked Iraq as a target after 9/11 by random selection? Do people think congress voted to support a war in Iraq by picking straws are something? No no... there is a boat load of evidence that Iraq was involved.

Now if you are looking for something like evidence beyond a shadow of doubt... no. We do not have a signed letter from Osama thanking Saddam for the 737 training... nor do we have a Saddam bank account statement with "pay off to Osama for anti-US activity" written on it.

However, as I said, there are clearly established connections, and the defector witnesses are very compelling. Saddam training non-iraqi nationals how to take over a plane without firearms? ... ah... random chance for sure. Nothing similar there... right?

So, yeah, I personally am convinced that Saddam was involved... maybe not directly... but most definitely indirectly.

I'm a bit surprised by this being 'news'. Uh... did no one but me hear the phrase "Saddam is waging a covert war" during the 90s? My first thought was Saddam on 9/11. Maybe I just tuned into the correct TV stations and web pages and radio stations or something...

 

[Bunz]

sigh...
I am saying that the evidence... does in fact suggest... if not prove... that Saddam/Iraq... was very much involved in 9/11. I'm not even sure why this is a surprise. Saddam's open support of terrorist activities prior to 9/11 was very well documented, and not just against US targets.

I fully believe that Saddam likely provided the training and possibly the funds, while Osama clearly recruited the attackers and the mastermind to plan it. You don't really think that the ability to take over and fly a plane was learned from inside a cave do you?

If anything I'm amazed that some think we picked Iraq as a target after 9/11 by random selection? Do people think congress voted to support a war in Iraq by picking straws are something? No no... there is a boat load of evidence that Iraq was involved.

Now if you are looking for something like evidence beyond a shadow of doubt... no. We do not have a signed letter from Osama thanking Saddam for the 737 training... nor do we have a Saddam bank account statement with "pay off to Osama for anti-US activity" written on it.

However, as I said, there are clearly established connections, and the defector witnesses are very compelling. Saddam training non-iraqi nationals how to take over a plane without firearms? ... ah... random chance for sure. Nothing similar there... right?

So, yeah, I personally am convinced that Saddam was involved... maybe not directly... but most definitely indirectly.

I'm a bit surprised by this being 'news'. Uh... did no one but me hear the phrase "Saddam is waging a covert war" during the 90s? My first thought was Saddam on 9/11. Maybe I just tuned into the correct TV stations and web pages and radio stations or something...

Hi Andy,
I just want to point out that since 2004, the White House came clean and said there was no connection. Now granted I know it is difficult to know when this Administration is telling the truth. But since 2004, they more or less came clean by saying there was no WMDs or 9-11 connection.

 

[Andy]

Where do you get that...

Hi Andy,
I just want to point out that since 2004, the White House came clean and said there was no connection. Now granted I know it is difficult to know when this Administration is telling the truth. But since 2004, they more or less came clean by saying there was no WMDs or 9-11 connection.

My prior post is of documented evidence. Nor have I ever heard any statement in which White house said anything close to what you just said.

Any idea there were not WMD is an absolute joke. Of course there were WMDs, Saddam used them in the past. By what logic would Saddam kick out the UN inspectors, inviting a military response if he had disarmed? No offense, but yes, he had WMDs, no question about it.

As for a 9/11 connection, well let's see, everyone else says there was. Nor have I heard our government say there wasn't. Even if it did, you are telling me that Iraqi military training non-Iraqi citizens how to take over a plane without firearms is... random chance... right... I don't buy it.

So explain where this crazy idea came from?

 

[Andy]

I am having posting troubles too

I'm having issue with the posting system to. If this works, then it seems limited to the "quick post" feature.
=======================

Found another one. All the temperature information I have looked up, was for basic steel. However, according to Underwriters Laboratories, the steel used in construction of the twin towers, was not similar low grade steel, but rather was a very high grade steel.

This steel was certified to melt at 1650ºC and certified weakening at 1100ºC after several hours.

Uh oh... another law of physics broken.

Jet fuel can not reach 1100ºC (and likely didn't reach half of that)
The fire was less than one hour, let only several hour required.
There was melted steel, so something did reach 1650ºC
What was it, and how'd it get there?

I can not imagine how anyone anywhere, given the evidence can still think a planes knocked down those towers. Just not possible.

 

[Andy]

50% of NY says inside job.

One question that I just want to throw out there is what about the people that actually witnessed the crashes at the pentagon and the WTC? Yes people can be paid off and the truth can be buried in political BS but military members died that day at the pentagon and 343 of my brother firefighters died at ground zero. If I have learned anything in my short life span this far (from actual been there done that experince) is that military and Fire Dept members will always get the truth when one of their own has been lost. So I don't see how any of these theories of inside jobs or my favorite one of a US Navy ship launching cruise missles at the US have any truth to them.

I'm sorry if the links have valid points to them but I only have so much computer time and can not view all of them.

There is a large number of Firefighters that claim it was an inside job. In fact, a poll in New York found that 50% believed it was an inside job. There's a neat video that is nothing but a montage of just people talking about their experience on 9/11... and many are fire fighters... and nearly every one... not all... the vast majority say there were explosions and clearly bombs planted in the build.

As for Military members that died in the Pentagon? News to me. Name one. From what I understand, the missle... or plane... hit a section that amazingly under construction and work was called off that day. No one was injured. (as far as I know)

 

[Dustin]

I don't believe in consparies, but I do ask why was there not plain remains at the pentagon?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't believe in consparies, but I do ask why was there not plain remains at the pentagon?

That's easy, you think you would see it because you are use to it when you see a plane crash. this was not a crash, this was a Full speed attack..The plan was not just taking off, or slowing to land where you see 99% of crashes...it was going balls out trying to crash...This makes the impact much greater....also I have seen pics where small amounts of wreckage is visible...also people saw the plane....also there is video.....also do you think they made up the plane and all those people on it who died, and all of there Relatives and Friends who lost people on it? Maybe they took the real plane and all the people to some underground bunker and killed them all...then shot a missile and said it was a plane...even though they already had use 3 planes....it was just to much to use a 4rth?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There is a large number of Firefighters that claim it was an inside job. In fact, a poll in New York found that 50% believed it was an inside job. There's a neat video that is nothing but a montage of just people talking about their experience on 9/11... and many are fire fighters... and nearly every one... not all... the vast majority say there were explosions and clearly bombs planted in the build.

As for Military members that died in the Pentagon? News to me. Name one. From what I understand, the missle... or plane... hit a section that amazingly under construction and work was called off that day. No one was injured. (as far as I know)

70% said those on the plane where Iraqi as well.. Most of America is dumb

Also 125 people where killed in the Pentagon 59 on the plane...But its nice to see you care so little about the facts that you just dismiss 125 dead.

 

[Bunz]

The 9-11 commission findings from 2004 established no evidence to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 much less any other relations between Iraq and ALQ, before 9-11-01. Keep in mind that Saddam and OBL were not buddies and OBL supplied assistance to Iraqi Kurds back in the day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

 

[Andy]

70% said those on the plane where Iraqi as well.. Most of America is dumb

Also 125 people where killed in the Pentagon 59 on the plane...But its nice to see you care so little about the facts that you just dismiss 125 dead.

The prior post specifically said military personnel, and I had previously thought that the 125 people who died were non-military, or civilian employees of the military. I understand now that some were in fact military personnel.

I'll ignore your dishonest and rather sophomoric slight. Given that you have not yet provided one single scientific or logic response to anything I have brought up... my expectations are low.

Never frustrate the children.

 

[Andy]

Uh no. There was a connection.

The 9-11 commission findings from 2004 established no evidence to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 much less any other relations between Iraq and ALQ, before 9-11-01. Keep in mind that Saddam and OBL were not buddies and OBL supplied assistance to Iraqi Kurds back in the day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Ok read your own article.... "The panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda"

"...There WERE contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda"

Further, you suggested that Bush and the White House had indicated there was not... no Bush has always stated openly there was.

Check out this evidence:
"Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

How funny. I never read that before, yet I came to the same conclusion.

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994"
MSN

"Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda."

"The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998"

"Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo corroborated previously sketchy reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-90s. U.S. officials learned more about the activities of Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi, an al Qaeda WMD specialist sent by bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime."

"Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994."

"Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

Need more? I'm still looking for a reasonable explanation of the decommissioned jet at the Iraqi base where non-Iraqi nationals were trained to take over a plane without firearms.

Say it with me: There was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Without question there was.

 

[Andy]

There was.

I don't believe in consparies, but I do ask why was there not plain remains at the pentagon?

That myth is debunked. The real question is, who doesn't want us to see the plane and why? See, from the flight path of the plane, it crosses 3 or 4 cameras. Obviously the one camera at the parking lot booth, facing where the plane hit. Two cameras over looking the highway that the plane flew just a few feet over. And supposedly one on a nearby building the faces that direction.

Of all 3 or 4 cameras and recorded footage, only 5 frames of one camera has been shown. Of the 5 frames, only ONE frame is of prior to the hit. Amazingly, the one single frame, that has the plane in it... the plane just "happens" to be directly behind the card swipe box. (that people swipe their cards through to open the gate)

Now I have not really commented on this because, unlike the towers coming down, it is possible that there is a reasons behind this I just don't know. I can't imagine what... but perhaps there is reason, or just random chance that no one got footage of this plane.

Other possible issues are, only one engine was found. I have no idea where that leads, but I suppose it could mean something. The width of the damage doesn't match the width of the plane. Also, many say the plane exploded before it fully hit the building. Like it was rigged to detonate on impact. Which would explain the width difference. All claims are sketchy and not really fully supportable.

It's just very difficult to understand how 3 or 4 cameras didn't catch one single complete frame of video showing a full view of the air craft. Or why anyone would be interested in suppressing it.

It's also a bit difficult to believe the camera at the Pentagon would be so crappy in it's footage, or to believe that that one single camera is the only one facing that direction. You are telling me the Pentagon, of all places, has only one camera facing that direction? That's it? One really crappy parking lot booth camera to cover that entire side?

The only answer I've gotten was that the camera facing that direction was destroyed in the blast, which of course is a joke sense the footage is recorded at a remote location, and without question, the same location as the parking lot booth camera.

 

[Bunz]

Andy,
Here is another article where Colin Powell said on Meet the Press that
there was no Iraq/9-11 connection. So I think we can clear up that part of the discussion pretty easily.
While it does appear there were a few contacts between Iraq and AQ over the years, they have not be able to establish any evidence of operational or finanancial cooperation.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html

Kerry challenges Bush on Iraq-9/11 connection
Says administration is implying link that has been disproved
Monday, September 13, 2004 Posted: 10:07 AM EDT (1407 GMT)

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry accused the Bush administration Sunday of falsely linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, "in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war."

Kerry made his charge in a statement released after Secretary of State Colin Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he has seen nothing to link Saddam Hussein's regime with the 9/11 attacks.

"We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."