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

[Miragememories]

But this is not what paloalto wrote.

Instead, paloalto is convinced of the following:

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.

Oystein, please stop with the love affair you are having with the formatting features.

Your chronic hi-lighting and use of color really gets tiresome and only makes reading unnecessarily difficult.

The content of your posts is hard enough to discern as it is, without the additional encumbrance created by your excessive text strutting.

Oh, regarding the OP, I think there is good reason to suspect Mossad involvement in 9/11, but I also believe such a thought is about as popular as a fart in a packed elevator.

Anytime Israel is introduced to this topic, the poster gets labeled as a holocaust denier, which for the record, I am not.

Nothing is sacrosanct when studying the truth of 9/11.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
Oh, regarding the OP, I think there is good reason to suspect Mossad involvement in 9/11,

This is the full extent of your complete theory of 9/11? And this is also your best hypothesis, the one you have the most confidence in? Please elaborate! This is 2% of a reply to the OP yet. Were there hijacked planes? Did they crash? What destroyed the towers, and how? What happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville? Who did what? And why - what were their motivations? MM, you surely have some best hypothesis, please do tell!

but I also believe such a thought is about as popular as a fart in a packed elevator.

Anytime Israel is introduced to this topic, the poster gets labeled as a holocaust denier, which for the record, I am not.
...

If you follow this thread, and read the OP ("Rule 1: no discussion!"), you will find that I strongly discourage posters from commenting on other people's theories; the only replies you will get from me are requests to clarify and complete your position.

 

[twinstead]

Nothing is sacrosanct when studying the truth of 9/11.

Nope. Even the possibility that it WASN'T an inside job, huh MM?

 

[Miragememories]

Nope. Even the possibility that it WASN'T an inside job, huh MM?

Careful you might be breaking one of Oystein's special rules?

MM

 

[Oystein]

Careful you might be breaking one of Oystein's special rules?

MM

Let this be my problem.

Your job now is to write up "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? "

This is quoting the OP at length.

If you are unable to reply to the OP, let this be known, and then get out of here, please, because your trolling is ruining yet another good thread.

 

[George 152]

No.

In spite of all the physical evidence that 911 was committed by 19 insane islamists

 

[Oystein]

In spite of all the physical evidence that 911 was committed by 19 insane islamists

Please mind the OP: I want to encourage everyone to share their best hypothesis of who did what, how and why on 9/11, and specifically ask everyone to refrain from asking for or presenting evidence.
Clayton Moore has not yet given us a full account of what he believes was done on (and before and after) 9/11, so please join me in asking Clayton Moore kindly to write up his full hypothesis, and I will promise I will not bug him with demands for evidence or criticism of details.

 

[Clayton Moore]

In spite of all the physical evidence that 911 was committed by 19 insane islamists

Think of it this way. 4 groups of young brown men boarding 4 commercial airliners with weapons without a hitch. 4 airliners completely unfettered by the US air forces. 3 major landmarks hit without a hitch with the Pentagon being the most protected building on the planet. Minimum casualties at the Pentagon because of the precise location attacked. 2 of the landmarks were completely destroyed.

That's enough evidence of collusion for any G rated whodunit.

 

[triforcharity]

I love the way Clayton poisons the well. Cool.

 

[Oystein]

...
That's enough evidence of collusion for any G rated whodunit.

Clayton, the OP asks you specifically NOT to present evidence.
Instead this thread is meant for everybody to state what they think they have evidence for: Who did what, how and why on 9/11?

Please, Clayton, address the OP, or I will have to report you for deliberately derailing the thread.

 

[A W Smith]

Clayton, the OP asks you specifically NOT to present evidence.
Instead this thread is meant for everybody to state what they think they have evidence for: Who did what, how and why on 9/11?

Please, Clayton, address the OP, or I will have to report you for deliberately derailing the thread.

no worries, he didn't post any evidence. But he did post his hypothesis , no? LOL

 

[MaGZ]

Oystein, please stop with the love affair you are having with the formatting features.

Your chronic hi-lighting and use of color really gets tiresome and only makes reading unnecessarily difficult.

The content of your posts is hard enough to discern as it is, without the additional encumbrance created by your excessive text strutting.

Oh, regarding the OP, I think there is good reason to suspect Mossad involvement in 9/11, but I also believe such a thought is about as popular as a fart in a packed elevator.

Anytime Israel is introduced to this topic, the poster gets labeled as a holocaust denier, which for the record, I am not.

Nothing is sacrosanct when studying the truth of 9/11.

MM

Mossad involvement or Mossad knowledge of 9/11?

 

[Oystein]

...
Oystein is asking for speculation ...

I am asking for speculation if speculation is all that you have. In this case, wouldn't it be simply a matter of honesty if you could write here that all that you have is speculation?

At any rate, I take this as you admitting that all that you have is speculation. Thanks for playing.


I would be happier if truthers could write down the things they consider proven or better than speculation. As I said many times, the regular posters here must have a working hypothesis, and it is totally okay by me if it has some gaps and parts that people are less than sure about. Just indicate which parts you are more convinced about, and which less, and I will honour that. I think a much more productive debate can ensue if we have a clearer picture of what elements of the story we need to find out more about.

 

[minnemouse]

As for where I was personally on the 11th of Sept, 2001, we were sitting down in a meeting with the contracter, taking over our house that we just had built. My little sister called me, and got me pretty annoyed cause she knew this was an important meeting, and told me to put on the telly. My curiousity got the better of me, and I did so, and at first I thought it was footage from Bruce Willis´ last Die hard movie, before I realized this was the real thing. And since both my husband and I work with air traffic control, it felt even worse to see the planes hitting the buildings, and we realized very quickly that this was no accident. The rest of the meeting felt pretty unimportant after that, and we finished up quickly.

As for what I think happened on that day, I agree with Oystein. As for why, I think that Lawrence Wrights book "Al-Qaeda & the Road to 9/11" explains it all in a very good way. I also think that ONE good thing came out of this entire tragic event, and thats that the different agencies now work together, instead of working in competition with each other, like they did very much so before 9/11.

I could never believe in a CT around this case, simply because of the magnitude and the size of such a conspiracy; I just dont think that it could have been kept a secret:
Benjamin Franklin once said; "Two can keep a secret if one of them are dead".

 

[Oystein]

Some statistics on this thread

I carefully read through all posts up to #136, and compiled the following statistics:

69 distinct posters replied so far, among these

57 who more or less follow the common narrative
2 who remain somewhat on the fence (BCR and Zeuzzz)
7 Truthers (that's a loose lable, meaning people who disagree with important elements of the common narrative)
2 whose general leaning I don't know (applecorped and Marquis de Carabas). These didn't address the OP seriously
1 Mod posting as a mod​

So that's 66 posters with a descernible serious opinion on the OP. In percent:

86% "debunkers"
11% "truthers"
3% "on the fence"​

Among the 57 debunkers,

65% (37) provided a full, verbose account
5% (3) provided a partial account
4% (2) referenced a full account (e.g. "the 9/11 Commission Report") without detailing it themselves
26% (15) gave no account​

Areas of disagreement are mainly the motivations of AQ, and the extent of incompetence and foreknowledge that might have been subject to some cover-up (yes, a handful of these "debunkers" are open to a slim possibility of "LIHOP")

Among the 2 fence-sitters,

50% (1)provided a full story
50% (1)provided a partial story​

Among the 7 truthers,

43% (3) give us a full story
53% (4) give us no story​

It is noteworthy that of the 3 full accounts offered by truthers, 2 are basically LIHOP stories which explain that
- AQ-terrorists did it
- WTC 1+2 collapsed due to planes and fires
- one of the two thinks WTC7 was demolished for benign reasons
Only one truther (14%, 9/11-investigator) told a story of controlled demoltions.

Where are all the truthers who believe in thermite and CD? Don't they have a story to tell? Don't they have convictions?

 

[excaza]

Terrorists did it because they hate our freedom.

 

[Sabretooth]

Terrorists did it because they hate our freedom.

Kind of.

It's more "Terrorists did it because they hate our allied relations with Israel".

 

[R.Mackey]

Where are all the truthers who believe in thermite and CD? Don't they have a story to tell? Don't they have convictions?

FWIW, your thread statistics closely track public polling about the Truth Movement -- support for any conspiracy theory at 10-15% (7 out of 66 here, or 10.5%), and among conspiracy believers, the majority are LIHOPers.

I think you've seen their best, and it's no wonder why.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I thought that there was "no discussion" in this thread? Anyways ...

What's your working theory instead in those areas that you disagree with?

I don't have a working theory, as such. I just don't think that the video evidence and other evidence relevant to WTC7's collapse can be explained away without drastically contradicting many parts of the official account. Thus my agnosticism. Few other points too but not as major as that one.

As for the other bits I highlighted, I think to say that OBL's aim was "to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction" is stupid. America's completely unnecessary over-reaction to the attacks (Afghanistan + Iraq) would have been nigh on impossible to anticipate. No doubt the war against both of these innocent countries could not have happened without the popular support the public gave due to 9/11. AQ did not plan to start wars and have hundreds of thousands of their people in their area killed, that's stupid even by their standards. OBL might have been a perfect front man, and indeed probably did harbor enough hatred to carry out such actions, but I think he lacked the power, support and capabilities to carry it out alone.

Despite the huge amount of documentaries all about every major disaster, plus huge amounts of 9/11 based ones, I've yet to see one that gives a detailed account of how this AQ plan worked, and how the logistics and main details of the plan were carried out. Paperwork will be even better than documentaries. Where did Bin Laden, his family and AQ get the large amounts of money + funding from, how did they have access to such security systems, wheres the video and security footage of the attackers (considering there will be thousands of airport videos)? etc.

These might even exist now, I'll be happy to read/watch any info anyone has on this.

Are you an agnostic towards bombs, additional incendiaries, controlled demolition, or do you believe there were bombs or additional incendiaries or controlled demolitions?

Until I see an official working hypothesis that explains the collapses (specially of WTC7) I'm still in the middle. Not seen an official account that explains the collapse evidence yet, but neither a conspiracy theory that stands up to all scrutiny.

Who do you think the perpetrators were?

Don't know.

What do you think was their motivation and their prosimate and strategic goals?

Power.

What are your main criticisms of the major investigations?

NIST report being as long as it was only covers up to pre-collapse conditions and ignores basically all post collapse modelling. The one column failure = total collapse model of WT7 seems ridiculous. And I guess the amount of money (or lack there-of) they used to fund the 9/11 report and further investigations seems insulting for such an important event are my main criticisms.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I thought that there was "no discussion" in this thread? Anyways ...




I don't have a working theory, as such. I just don't think that the video evidence and other evidence relevant to WTC7's collapse can be explained away without drastically contradicting many parts of the official account. Thus my agnosticism. Few other points too but not as major as that one.

As for the other bits I highlighted, I think to say that OBL's aim was "to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction" is stupid. America's completely unnecessary over-reaction to the attacks (Afghanistan + Iraq) would have been nigh on impossible to anticipate. No doubt the war against both of these innocent countries could not have happened without the popular support the public gave due to 9/11. AQ did not plan to start wars and have hundreds of thousands of their people in their area killed, that's stupid even by their standards. OBL might have been a perfect front man, and indeed probably did harbor enough hatred to carry out such actions, but I don't think he lacked the power, support and capabilities to carry it out alone.

Despite the huge amount of documentaries all about every major disaster, plus huge amounts of 9/11 based ones, I've yet to see one that gives an in detail account of how this AQ plan worked, and how the main details of the plan worked out. Paperwork will be even better than documentaries, where did Bin Laden, his family and AQ get the large amounts of money + funding from, how did they have access to such security systems? etc.

These might even exist now, I'll be happy to read any info anyone has on this.




Until I see an official working hypothesis that explains the collapse (specially of WTC7) I'm still in the middle. Not seen an official account that explains the collapse evidence yet, but neither a conspiracy theory that stands up to all scrutiny.




Don't know.




Power.



NIST report being as long as it was only covers up to pre-collapse conditions and ignores basically all post collapse modelling. The one column failure = total collapse model of WT7 seems ridiculous. And I guess the amount of money (or lack there-of) they used to fund the 9/11 report and further investigations seems insulting for such an important event are my main criticisms.

Excellent post.