Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

[carlitos]

NO DISCUSSION!111!!!1!1

 

[Allen773]

19 young adult men - 15 Saudi nationals, 2 Emaritis, 1 Egyptian national, and 1 native of Lebanon - who were associated with the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization, headed (at the time) by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden - violently hijacked four transcontinental flights (two 767s and two 757s, one of each from American Airlines and United Airlines) and crashed three of them, one after the other, into each of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC, and the Pentagon in Arlington, VA. The hijackers on the fourth flight - likely intended to crash into the US Capitol building - were successfully prevented from reaching their target by the passengers and crew fighting back.

All on board the four flights were killed, as were well over 2,000 people in NYC from the unbelievable devastation and eventual collapse of the Twin Towers and 125 people working in the Pentagon at the time.

Among the 19 hijackers, the leaders/pilots of the operation had been living in the United States for a few years prior to the attacks. They trained at American flight schools, received financial and operational assistance from other Al-Qaeda operatives working in other countries around the world, and very likely received some additional financing from wealthy individuals from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states.

Among the many possible motives for the attacks, the ones that I personally find to be the most important for understanding 9/11 is that Osama bin Laden wanted to:
1) Send a message to the Saudi royal family about its relationship with the US government;
2) Send a message to the United States about how much bin Laden and others resented and hated the US for its influence over the Middle East- and by extension, the "Islamic world" as a whole
3)Send a message to the world over how the "Great Satan", the "head of the snake", was a "paper tiger" and couldn't even defend its own people on its own soil.
4) Inspire and encourage other terrorist and militant groups within the Islamic world to fight others
5) Get a lot of media attention, exposure, publicity, etc. and make Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden household names.
6) A recruitment effort for what bin Laden (and the Taliban) correctly anticipated would be a "War on Terror" - a recruitment effort for the jihadists.
7) A provocation to the United States to get into wars in the Middle East, South Asia, and potentially elsewhere -which, bin Laden hoped, would turn world opinion (and especially, Islamic world opinion) against the "Great Satan" and its allies.

Al-Qaeda exploited existing vulnerabilities within America's national security apparatus. By carrying out the attacks of 9/11, they demonstrated that a relatively small cadre of determined, savvy, and intelligent fanatics could inflict a lot of damage, in a sensational and shocking way, and that they could change the course of history in ways that all of us are still grappling with.

 

[Oystein]

Allow me to resurrect my old (September 2010) "Roll Call" and give the current batch of Truthers, Debunkers, Fence-Sitters and Lurkers a chance to weigh in, and perhaps the old farts to update their previously stated position.Here's the OP, quoted in full.

Since this the topic of this thread is a query among members what their current summary opinion is on the event of 9/11/2001 (including lead-up and aftermath), any discussion that goes beyond requests for clarification of the stated opinions is strictly off-topic, and I will report every post that I find clearly beyond the scope of this thread. This means specifically:
FalseFlag: Please post exactly once!
Everyone else: Please resust getting lured by FalseFlag into derailing this thread!

Hey everybody,

Rule 1: No discussion, please!
I don't want to debate anybody's opinion, so please refrain entirely from quoting anybody, calling them names, demanding evidence etc.
Only exception: Requests to clear up statements you did not understand.

I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it. You may indicate which parts of your hypothesis you consider hard fact, and which you only guess or are unsure about.

Here's a little checklist of the elements you might want to consider:
- 4 civilian planes - real? hijacked? remote controlled? crashed where?
- Twin Towers - plane crashes? Cause of collapse?
- WTC7 - cause of collapse?
- Pentagon - plane crash? Missile?
- Shanksville - plane? Shot down?
- If Al Quaeda: Do they hate our freedom? Mindless killers? Is it about Israel? Did they want the wars?
- If the government: Who was involved? Bush? Cheney? Any foreign agents? MIHOP or LIHOP?
- What about the investigations? 9/11 Commission? NIST? FEMA? FBI? Need a new one? if so, what objectives? Who should chair it?

 

[JihadJane]

World War Three was launched.

 

[beachnut]

World War Three was launched.

Yes, and that war ended, UBL is "sleeping with the fishes".

What do you think happened on 9/11, and why? I thought up one better, 9/11 truth died, stillbirth.

Very good response to the what happened on 911, a great summary, at a high, or is it low level of abstraction. outstanding

 

[Oystein]

FYI: JihadJane already answered early in the thread, in the fall of 2010:

I don't know.

And answered again in April 2015:

We'll never know because the CIA's brief was to extract false confessions.

And now:

World War Three was launched.

Nothing about the planes, the buildings, the victims, the perpetrators, the motives, the lead-up, the investigations.

As I said already, "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

FYI: JihadJane already answered early in the thread, in the fall of 2010:


And answered again in April 2015:


And now:


Nothing about the planes, the buildings, the victims, the perpetrators, the motives, the lead-up, the investigations.

As I said already, "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer.

I commented what I thought happened on a thread in 2006, terrorist flew planes into buildings, setting them on fire causing them to collapse, killing innocent people, and nuts made stories to sell books and make a buck off the tragedy.

 

[ozeco41]

Allow me to resurrect my old (September 2010) "Roll Call" and give the current batch of Truthers, Debunkers, Fence-Sitters and Lurkers a chance to weigh in, and perhaps the old farts to update their previously stated position.Here's the OP, quoted in full...

I see you include me in the target group.

My position on the issues within the scope of the topic is substantially unchanged from my statement at Post #113 - 29 Oct 2011

Since this the topic of this thread is a query among members what their current summary opinion is on the event of 9/11/2001 (including lead-up and aftermath), any discussion that goes beyond requests for clarification of the stated opinions is strictly off-topic, and I will report every post that I find clearly beyond the scope of this thread. This means specifically:
FalseFlag: Please post exactly once!
Everyone else: Please resist getting lured by FalseFlag into derailing this thread!

 

[FalseFlag]

I will only state what I know happened with 100 percent certainty.

1. A plane that looked like a Boeing 767 crashed into WTC1. The crash started fires.
2. A plane that looked like a Boeing 767 crashed into WTC2. The crash started fires.
3. A plane crashed into the Pentagon.
4. WTC2 collapsed.
5. WTC1 collapsed.
6. WTC7 collapsed.
7. The 9/11 Commission performed an "investigation". They ignored lots of evidence.
8. NIST performed an "investigation". They ignored lots of evidence.

You said, "No discussion," so that is where I will stop.

 

[Richard the G]

I agree with Oystein.

There was no evidence or indication of controlled demolition.

However I don't think the commission did a thorough enough job on the details of the failure mechanism. I think they knew their analysis was oversimplistic and they did not leave the door open for future clarifications. In particular missing out the effects of air pressure on the WTC 1&2 failures and missing out on the significance of the WTC7 penthouse collapse and the heat and cooling cycle in WTC7.

However in my opinion they did enough to bring the facts to engineers. Which is why ae911truth has less than 0.02% support in the engineering community Real engineers, like me, have refused to get embroiled in a discussion about the investigation because of concern that it will encourage the CD nuts.

 

[NoahFence]

What happened on 9/11 was the culmination of many years of desire by Al Qaeda to inflict massive damage on America, using the most iconic places they could find.

America is a financial giant = WTC
America is a military giant = Pentagon
America is a beacon of democracy = US Capital Building (a safe assumption for the 4th target)

Having already tried to knock one of the twin towers into the other and failing on February 26, 1993, UBL and his merry band of morons came up with another plan, using knowledge they've gained through experience.

Experience says that a hijacked aircraft will land, refuel, and make demands. Passengers and crew on the aircraft have also seen this. This is what happens when an aircraft gets hijacked - period. (Pre-9/11)

Two of the planes hit the WTC towers. Both collapsed due to the impacts and subsequent fires. If one were to use common sense, one would imagine in such a scenario that the building with the most weight above the weakened portion would collapse first. Well, that's exactly what happened. One would also think "holy crap I didn't think THAT would happen" until about a half hour later when the other one did the same thing. At that point it became obvious (to the sane) that those buildings weren't designed to survive that amount of stress.

AA 11 was hijacked, and flown into the Pentagon. By this time, word has started spreading about what was clearly an attack, clearly not what we're used to when it comes to hijacking. This word made its way to the passengers and crew of Flight 93, who heroically decided that their aircraft would not find its target.

Terrorists are more than capable of finding weakness in their enemy, just like everyone else. These are not cave dwellers. They've hijacked enough planes to know what the procedure is. That was the information they used against us. 9/11 was mind-numbingly simple. Fly planes into the biggest buildings you can find, whatever happens next is just icing on the cake.

 

[Oystein]

I will only state what I know happened with 100 percent certainty.

1. A plane that looked like a Boeing 767 crashed into WTC1. The crash started fires.
2. A plane that looked like a Boeing 767 crashed into WTC2. The crash started fires.
3. A plane crashed into the Pentagon.
4. WTC2 collapsed.
5. WTC1 collapsed.
6. WTC7 collapsed.
7. The 9/11 Commission performed an "investigation". They ignored lots of evidence.
8. NIST performed an "investigation". They ignored lots of evidence.

You said, "No discussion," so that is where I will stop.

Thanks, but I mainly said "state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it. You may indicate which parts of your hypothesis you consider hard fact, and which you only guess or are unsure about."
I'd appreciate if you could expand your reply to include that which I actually asked for: Your working hypothesis of the entire event, including the things where you are less than 100% certain. Thanks.

 

[ozeco41]

Those eight should be non-contentious agreed facts - despite the hyperbolic implications "looked like" and "lots of".

 

[FalseFlag]

FalseFlag, I think you misunderstood that rule. You're supposed to say what you think happened, not what you know for a fact.

OK. Based on the facts I listed those facts are what I think happened. I also think we need an real investigation to learn more facts.

 

[FalseFlag]

Thanks, but I mainly said "state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it. You may indicate which parts of your hypothesis you consider hard fact, and which you only guess or are unsure about."
I'd appreciate if you could expand your reply to include that which I actually asked for: Your working hypothesis of the entire event, including the things where you are less than 100% certain. Thanks.

Thanks for asking for my working hypothesis, but I will politely refuse to provide it.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for asking for my working hypothesis, but I will politely refuse to provide it.

Accepted - that's anyone's prerogative here.

 

[heymatto70]

I'll go with Occam's Razor:

19 terrorists-trained, recruited by and supported by AQ- hijacked 4 airplanes, crashing them into symbols of American might financially (WTC 1 and 2) militarily (Pentagon) and politically (either the Capital or White House). The WTC, due to their design and jet impact (which caused columns to fail and fires to rage unchecked for at least 50 minutes in WTC 2 and 90 minutes in WTC 1-I'm rounding here) collapsed, causing a great deal of lives lost, and a lot of collateral damage to the surrounding buildings of the WTC complex, including the destruction of WTC 3, a near by church, and WTC 7, along with damage that made WTC 4-6 unsavable in the long run. There was no need for explosives as unchecked fires weakened the steel in the WTC enough to cause critical failures of several connections.

 

[HSienzant]

I'll go with Occam's Razor:

19 terrorists-trained, recruited by and supported by AQ- hijacked 4 airplanes, crashing them into symbols of American might financially (WTC 1 and 2) militarily (Pentagon) and politically (either the Capital or White House). The WTC, due to their design and jet impact (which caused columns to fail and fires to rage unchecked for at least 50 minutes in WTC 2 and 90 minutes in WTC 1-I'm rounding here) collapsed, causing a great deal of lives lost, and a lot of collateral damage to the surrounding buildings of the WTC complex, including the destruction of WTC 3, a near by church, and WTC 7, along with damage that made WTC 4-6 unsavable in the long run. There was no need for explosives as unchecked fires weakened the steel in the WTC enough to cause critical failures of several connections.

I'll second that.

 

[HSienzant]

Duplicate Posting

 

[pgimeno]

Bump for PhotoMatt, Fonebone, MicahJava, Tippit, tanabear and whoever else wants to participate.

Please remember this bit from the OP:

Hey everybody,

Rule 1: No discussion, please!