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

OK Oystein, here goes... I'm using your template and adding points of difference. I'm also providing links to some of my videos for more thorough explanations of some of these points.

4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

All the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition. I am in 98% agreement with the technical findings of NIST, and also agree with the findings of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which adds that thermal contraction of the beams after the fires left each area could have further destabilizedd the structures. I also recognize that there is wiggle room on some of the details, since in Building 7 especially the structural issues were mostly invisible behind the perimeter walls. part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q&feature=related


The hijackers commandeered the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control. However, we don't know what happened inside the cockpit of Flight 93, where a passenger and hijacker may have been fighting for control of the plane. No shootdown.

Gary Hart and others repeatedly warned us of our woeful lack of preparation for a terrorist attack on US soil. In the late 90s, Hart actually asked a top Air Force brass if they would shoot down an errant passenger plane if it were headed into the White House, and he admitted that protocol or not, they would not have the nerve to shoot it down. Inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology was only part of the problem. No one in the chain of command would have been willing to order a shootdown of a passenger jet full of US citizens. part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2gW0jFA&feature=related

Some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim.

I am an extremely skeptical agnostic on the question of whether someone maliciously allowed the attacks to take place. I have not researched this, but I wonder if it's possible if Cheney had the power, with a small handful of evildoers, to orchestrate a let-it-happen scenario to fulfill their Project for a New American Century goals of total military dominion through endless war. I seriously doubt this, because among other things, during the Iraq War, even Cheney admitted they had found no WMDs, a level of honesty that is higher than the kind complete dishonesty I would expect from a traitor. Plus he would have been literally executed if caught.

The hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I have not studied the 9/11 Commission's work nearly as much as the NIST Report because my research has focused on the technical questions of controlled demolition vs natural collapse. However, I am also deeply uncomfortable with the charges of "designed to fail" and other strong statements made by the members of that commission. The Bush Administration didn't want a 9/11 Commission at all, and was not entirely forthcoming. I believe, but have no proof, that this was a Cover Your Ass move to hide governmental incompetence, which gave the government less credibility. This is why, even though I could find no scientific evidence for controlled demolition, I remain on the fence about some kind of new investigation. part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

Sorry Oystein for my blatant plagiarisms. Also I hope that Childlike Empress and others will take a chance and lay out their beliefs too. Oystein is doing a great job of moderating this thread and keeping it respectful. I for one just want to hear what you all have to say in a less contentious environment.
 
Here is chrismohr's payback for taking from Oystein, I will do the same to him with my own modifications (highlighted / strikeouts):

4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

All the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition. I am in 98% agreement with the technical findings of NIST, and also agree with need to review the findings of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which adds that thermal contraction of the beams after the fires left each area could have further destabilizedd the structures. I also recognize that there is wiggle room on some of the details, since in Building 7 especially the structural issues were mostly invisible behind the perimeter walls. part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06L...eature=related


The hijackers commandeered the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control. However, we don't know what happened inside the cockpit of Flight 93, where a passenger and hijacker may have been fighting for control of the plane. No shootdown.

Gary Hart, Richard Clarke and others repeatedly warned us of our woeful lack of preparation for a terrorist attack on US soil. In the late 90s, Hart actually asked a top Air Force brass if they would shoot down an errant passenger plane if it were headed into the White House, and he admitted that protocol or not, they would not have the nerve to shoot it down. Inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology was only part of the problem. No one in the chain of command would is on record stating that they have been willing to order a shootdown of a passenger jet full of US citizens. part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2...eature=related

Some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim.

I am an extremely skeptical agnostic on the question of whether someone maliciously allowed the attacks to take place. I have not researched this, but I wonder if it's possible if Cheney had the power, with a small handful of evildoers, to orchestrate a let-it-happen scenario to fulfill their Project for a New American Century goals of total military dominion through endless war. I seriously doubt this, because among other things, during the Iraq War, even Cheney admitted they had found no WMDs, a level of honesty that is higher than the kind complete dishonesty I would expect from a traitor. Plus he would have been literally executed if caught. Also, the neo-cons in the White House sought immediately to try to find a way to tie the tragedy to Iraq, demonstrating an apparent lack of foreknowledge.
The hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I have not studied the 9/11 Commission's work nearly as much as the NIST Report because my research has focused on the technical questions of controlled demolition vs natural collapse. However, I am also deeply uncomfortable with the charges of "designed to fail" and other strong statements made by the members of that commission. The Bush Administration didn't want a 9/11 Commission at all, and was not entirely forthcoming. I believe, but have no proof, that this was a Cover Your Ass move to hide governmental incompetence, which gave the government less credibility. This is why, even though I could find no scientific evidence for controlled demolition, I remain on the fence about some kind of new investigation. part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM I believe that the White House briefing report in August shows that the Bush administration should have known a threat existed, however the neo-con focus on Iraq and stated dismissal of non-state actors blinded them
I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.
Click to expand...

I finally add that I do not see the benefit of reopening the investigation, because at this point with nothing further to substantially be gained from physical evidence, witnesses would either plead the 5th or "not recall", and it would only serve to reopen old wounds from a past administration that is already out of power.
 
LSSBB said:
Here is chrismohr's payback for taking from Oystein, I will do the same to him with my own modifications (highlighted / strikeouts):

I finally add that I do not see the benefit of reopening the investigation, because at this point with nothing further to substantially be gained from physical evidence, witnesses would either plead the 5th or "not recall", and it would only serve to reopen old wounds from a past administration that is already out of power.
Click to expand...

So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
Click to expand...
No, I believe an investigation would not work. No more physical evidence, plus pleading the 5th. It would be beating a dead horse.
 
Last edited:
I guess we'll have to wait another indetermined amount of time for MM to actually give us his version of the entire day's events.

MM - do you even know why that's important?
 
Miragememories said:
So in other words, regardless of the truth, you would rather support a cover up, because you feel a full investigation would be; too difficult, too unpleasant, and too much of a hassle.

MM
Click to expand...
Agree with MM on this one. I am on the fence, but at the very least a new investigation might reveal a coverup of governmental incompetence, and may well also help us understand the abuses of executive privelege that occurred (and are now part of the executive's power structure). This investigation will not happen, however. It is a political impossibility in my honest opinion. UNLESS we find thermite in the dust, whch I really really really really really really really really doubt, but just in case I am pursuing that lead, as many of you know. MM did you ever imagine we'd agree at least a little?
 
LSSBB said:
No, I believe an investigation would not work. No more physical evidence, plus pleading the 5th. It would be beating a dead horse.
Click to expand...

...and to clarify, by reopening old wounds, I meant from the nations perspective, not the previous administration. I would not be sorry to see them suffer from getting dragged to the "long green table" again.
 
Before you do a re-investigation, you must have some idea what you want to investigate.

Must. Have. This is non-negotiable. So that means you must have some alternate idea about what might have taken place. It doesn't have to be proven, but it does need to be self-consistent, and testable.

Personally, the only cover-up I can imagine would be a screwup comparable to Operation Gunrunner / Fast and Furious, i.e., a situation where the FBI knew about the al-Qaeda terrorists and had enough on them to arrest, but gave them a little more rope with which to hang themselves, then lost control. Even this is difficult for me to believe, however, given the comments from Michael Scheuer in particular. Nonetheless, this sort of thing can be investigated productively.

There are also obvious cover-ups of a few careers within NORAD, no doubt; that was already found and detailed by the 9/11 Commission. The argument here seems to be on whether they were punished enough. That doesn't really interest me.

Other items, like explosives in the Towers that went off at impact (??), shoot-downs of UA 93, etc., sorry, didn't happen. There is definitive evidence against all of that stuff, and no possible explanation tendered by anyone about how it might have happened. You want me to support a reinvestigation of that, you'd better come up with a plausible hypothesis. I've been asking for one for five years now.
 
Thing is... any investigation or shakeup of the intelligence community doesn't start/end with 911. I'm sure it would be a huge and interesting sub-set of an overall investigation, but there are dozens of other topics that would show the same examples of bureaucratic CYA, abyssmal inter-agency cooperation and communication, opportunities bungled, etc...

I think glorifying the 911 TM by using a "New 911 Investigation" as a leaping off point is misleading. The 911 intelligence failings were a symptom, not the disease.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think glorifying the 911 TM by using a "New 911 Investigation" as a leaping off point is misleading. The 911 intelligence failings were a symptom, not the disease.
Click to expand...
And that is the core reason why a "new investigation" would be fruitless.

Separate clearly the technical issues which were 9/11 specific and have long been answered. There is no easy boundary around the socio-political-intelligence agency range of problems. And they are not 9/11 specific. Simply the whole complex of political accommodations and pragmatics which is democratic governance dealing with complex issues.

The implicit premise of any call for a new investigation into 9/11 political management is flawed. Look at it two ways.

The first way is that it presumes that there is a boundary separating the "good" and the "bad"- unless such a clean separation exists the suggested "new investigation" is doomed to failure. And there ain't no such clear boundary.

The second way is the realistic one that working outwards from the presumed "bad" it is all varying shades of grey right out to the near white of the "good".

That reality serves the truth movement as we currently see it. If they got their "new investigation" it could never go far enough. Non of our trolls or truthers or change-coats will ever be specific as to what they want investigated. I don't want to credit them with intelligence but the trolls certainly manipulate that lack of precision "we want a new investigation with subpoena powers..." is the mantra BUT "to investigate what?" is never stated. (plus the separate issue of what magic a subpoena is supposed to perform).
Your insight is true:
The 911 intelligence failings were a symptom, not the disease.
Click to expand...
...well stated.
 
R.Mackey said:
Before you do a re-investigation, you must have some idea what you want to investigate.

Must. Have. This is non-negotiable. So that means you must have some alternate idea about what might have taken place. It doesn't have to be proven, but it does need to be self-consistent, and testable.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly what this thread is about. Yet very few have stated a whole theory, and those few who have don't match what the usual 911TM narrative says.

Unfortunately, for the 911TM, "truth" is defined as "the Bush administration is guilty of the attacks", and they don't want a new investigation: they want an investigation that blames the Bush administration. Any result contrary to that will not satisfy them and they will ask for a new one. Therefore it's utterly pointless. I agree with both LSSBB and chrismohr. An investigation aimed at what the 911TM is pursuing is pointless. An investigation aimed at revealing government incompetence could be quite fruitful and useful.
 
Ryan'as right of course that a new investigation must have a focus. a testable reality-based hypothesis. Gage has repeatedly asked me to sign his petition and I have refused, because his new investigation calls for a hard look at his controlled demolition theory. I am convinced there is no science behind that theory. As for the political side, on that I may be agreeable if someone came up with a clear focus that had not been looked at already. But this discussion is moot because there is no political will for such an investigation.

In the meantime I, like many others here, continue to hope for more explanations from 9/11 Truth people of what it is they think happened. Just a narrative of how you think the events unfolded that day.
 
paloalto said:
The US intelligence agencies, the FBI HQ and the CIA knew when Midhar and Hazmi were found inside of the US on August 22, 2001. that they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

These same agencies had been keeping secret since November 2000, the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing.

All of the terrorists at that meeting had been photographed by Malaysian intelligence and most identified as long time al Qaeda terrorists, and this information sent to the CIA, including Black and Tenet. The CIA was horrified when Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing was positively identified on January 4, 2001 from the photograph of him at this Kuala Lumpur meeting, actually planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi. This clearly meant that the CIA was culpable in the Cole bombing attack.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt accidentally found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, on August 28, 2001, and knew they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001, FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi shut down his investigation with the excuse, that the NSA information the Cole bombing investigators would need had not been approved to be shared with FBI criminal investigators. But a request for Dina Corsi had been approved the day before by the NSA, to provide the information from the Kuala Lumpur meeting to Steve Bongardt and his team.

When Bongardt protested and requested that Corsi get a legal ruling from the FBI NSLU, to see if he could take part in an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, he was told by Corsi on August 29, 2001 that NSLU had ruled that he and his team could have no part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But in the 9/11 Commission report we are told that Sherry Sabol, the NSLU attorney, had ruled that Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi emailed Bongardt on August 29, 2001 and said “If at such time information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to procedures."

But not only did Corsi know, as well as the CIA and FBI HQ, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, and they also knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, and that Bin Laden had already been indicted for the east Africa bombings. Since these were crimes, there was no legitimate reason for Corsi, her boss Rod Middleton, and FBI HQ to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

It is clear that Corsi was working under the direction of CIA officer Tom Wilshire, and that Wilshire had been denied twice in July 2001 from getting permission from his CIA managers, Blee, Black and Tenet, to turn the information on Kuala Lumpur over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. Wilshire had sent email to these same CIA managers with his request on July 23, 2001 indicating that Mihdhar and by association Hazmi would be found at the next al Qaeda attack.

On August 23, 2001, CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet were notified that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. It is clear they knew that these terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. So it is clear that when FBI HQ/CIA shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, many of the people at the CIA and FBI HQ , knew the result would be the murder of thousands of Americas in a huge al Qaeda attack as a direct result of their actions in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On September 11, 2001 Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were on AA 77 that hit the Pentagon. It is also known that 10 tickets for the 9/11 hijackers were purchased with Mihdhar’s credit card. Given the connection between Mihdhar and many of the al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11 it is inconceivable that Bongardt and his team could not have prevented the attacks on 9/11 had their investigation not been shut down.
Click to expand...

Great post. Thanks.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Great post. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you agree with everything paloalto writes and clearly implies? And with everything of importance that he doesn't mention? I mean do you agree in particular that
- Al Quaida terrorists, not US or Israeli agents, did it?
- US agencies "only" let the AQ plan go forward?
- That plane crashes and fires, not CD or anything else, destroyed the WTC buildings?
 
Oystein said:
Does this mean you agree with everything paloalto writes and clearly implies? And with everything of importance that he doesn't mention? I mean do you agree in particular that
- Al Quaida terrorists, not US or Israeli agents, did it?
- US agencies "only" let the AQ plan go forward?
- That plane crashes and fires, not CD or anything else, destroyed the WTC buildings?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Oystein said:
If you don't agree with paloalto, why do you think his post was great?

What else do you think happened on 9/11? Who did what, how and why? You best full hypothesis, please!
Click to expand...

What I agree with is that the LAW hampered investigations and let those people slide. Not so they could DO 9/11 but so they could be available to be blamed for it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What I agree with is that the LAW hampered investigations and let those people slide. Not so they could DO 9/11 but so they could be available to be blamed for it.
Click to expand...

But this is not what paloalto wrote.

Instead, paloalto is convinced of the following:
paloalto said:
Oystein said:
Thanks for replying, and boiling your story down.

For clarity, may I ask if the following is a fair representation of your story? You seem to focus very much on those who did not prevent the attack und very little on those who carried them out. So:

You think that Al Quaeda operatives hijacked 4 planes, flew them into 3 buildings and 1 field, caused the destruction of the WTC complex thusly (impacts and fires leading to collapses), and did all this to kill as many Americans as possible to ... further whatever objectives they may have had. So far the story most of us subscribe to, right?
In addition, you believe that senior CIA managers, including Blee, Black and Tenet, obstructed CIA and FBI investigations into past Al Quaeda terror attacks and planning meetings, despite having information that they were probably planning attacks inside the USA. This prevented the arrest and/or closer investigation of two of the 19 hijackers. Had they been apprehended in time, the 9/11 attacks would likely have been prevented.

Correct?
Click to expand...

Yes you are absolutely correct. ...
Click to expand...
In other words: NO eplosives, NO CD, NO US or Mossad planning behind the attacks.
Do you copy, Clayton Moore? Paloalto does not at all subscribe to your theory of MIHOP.





Also, you forgot to reply to the second part of my post, and indeed the OP and the topic of this thread:

What else do you think happened on 9/11? Who did what, how and why? You best full hypothesis, please!

If you can't answer that, please say so, or stay out of this thread. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom