Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[tiswas]

Even though this is a skeptics forum, does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me. Just think of this fact, the USA has the best air defences and 15 hijackers just hoped on planes to do this terrible deed.
Something, regd whether you are Skeptic or not it sounds sinister to me.

[Pebble]

Even though this is a skeptics forum, does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me. Just think of this fact, the USA has the best air defences and 15 hijackers just hoped on planes to do this terrible deed.
Something, regd whether you are Skeptic or not it sounds sinister to me.

All of 9/11 as reported in mainstream media and the official reports I find very plausible.

Where I have problems if the responses of Bush & Blair. Using this and similar events to attack Iraq, and curtail liberty.

[bobdezon]

Even though this is a skeptics forum, does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me.

Yes, it is very sinister. The fact that 2,985 people died is horrifying.

Just think of this fact, the USA has the best air defences and 15 hijackers just hoped on planes to do this terrible deed.

Ah, so you make an assumption on the capability of air defence, and this leads you to a false conclusion that an attack would be impossible unless the US Gov assisted it in some way? US air defence is adequate, but you are assuming that is it so perfect that mistakes (such as human error) or negligence played no part in this? The level of security is irrelevant to to the outcome. Any security expert can tell you that security can be circumvented by a variety of means, and you cannot prevent every hostile action from occuring. The level of security just makes it harder to accomplish, not prevent it.

Something, regd whether you are Skeptic or not it sounds sinister to me.

Well there are a lot of conspiracy theories floating about, but conspiracy theories are like assholes, almost everyone has one. If you have a theory, why dont you see if it has already been examined?

http://www.debunking911.com/

[ZERO]

Even though this is a skeptics forum, does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me. Just think of this fact, the USA has the best air defences and 15 hijackers just hoped on planes to do this terrible deed.
Something, regd whether you are Skeptic or not it sounds sinister to me.

I would think that prior to 9/11 and probably even now mainland US does not have much of an anti aircraft defence system. There is no history of spy plane overflights or air strikes to defend against.

It is not surprising that a coordinated attack using civilian aircraft was successful. It was over too fast for the authorities to react and respond. Shooting down a plane load of civilians was unthinkable and not an automatic response.

[Mulder]

Even though this is a skeptics forum, does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me. Just think of this fact, the USA has the best air defences and 15 hijackers just hoped on planes to do this terrible deed.
Something, regd whether you are Skeptic or not it sounds sinister to me.

I think 9/11 was very sinister! Did you visit the US before 9/11? If you had, you would have seen how lax their airport security was compared to Europe. You used to be able to board an internal flight and buy your ticket on the plane, like a bus!

[Cuddles]

I would think that prior to 9/11 and probably even now mainland US does not have much of an anti aircraft defence system. There is no history of spy plane overflights or air strikes to defend against.

Not quite correct. The US does have extremely good air defences. Probably not as good as many people think since it's been reduced a fair bit since the cold war ended. But the important point is that they're defences - pointed outwards to stop hostile forces reaching and attacking the US. The idea that the military would do the FCC's job of monitoring all internal flights, as well as being ready to shoot any one of them down on a moment's notice, is laughable even now, let alone pre-9/11.

[Croydon Bob]

does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me.

Religious fanatics plotting the death of thousands of civilians? Yes, sinister.

Deliberately flying an aircraft full of people into a building full of people? Yes, sinister.

Making up nonsense conspiracy theories blaming it on Jews/Civil Servants/Shape Changing Reptiloids? Yup, that's pretty sinister too.

[Matt]

Even though this is a skeptics forum, does the story of 9/11 sound sinister to you people, it does to me. Just think of this fact, the USA has the best air defences and 15 hijackers just hoped on planes to do this terrible deed.
Something, regd whether you are Skeptic or not it sounds sinister to me.

Yes when you compare it to all those other hijackings when civilian aircraft on internal flights have been shot down, it's clear that normal procedures weren't followed. And then you come back to reality and find that the terrorists are rubbing their hands together with glee as their video confessions are ignored in favour of their enemy turning upon itself.

There was no deviation at all from the established procedures of the day and that Dylan Avery and the like are simply selling bankrupt lies based upon the historians falalcy.

There is a maxim known as Hanlon's Razor: "nevar ascribe to malice that which can be easliy explained by incompetance."

I wouldn't put it beyond certain elements of the administration at the time to instigate a false flag fake terrorist outrage in an effort at warmongering, but if you want to support that accusaiton you have to look to testimony from the likes of Richard Clarke, there the most you seem to be able to find is evidence of a LIHOP scenario. However even if you do choose to make the leap to a plausible MIHOP set up the evidence is clear that their methods certainly involved the recruiting of genuine islamists who believed they were acting in the interests of Islam. These people certainly did board planes armed with little more than box cutters. The plane crews apparently followed SOP in offering minimal resistiance in a hijacking situation. History at that time showed that negotiation was the best way to preserve lives. Then three of the planes certainly hit high profile targets within a few minutes of each other and history changed.

It might seem suprising in this day and age when you can't even take a drink on board a plane that these swarthy gentlemen carrying knives were not challenged. however I rememebr being allowed to carry a far more threatening blade on board a plane, I could even smoke.

People on the fourth plane certainly did hear about the other hijackings via mobile phones and air phones which certainly did work under those circumstances. I've always been quite willing to belive that this last plane could have been and probably should have been shot down. However the evidence appears to be that the passengers caused it to crash in a field as they tried to retake the plane. I'm prepared to give the conspiracy theorist who asserts that this crash site was covered up rather more slack than the person who claims that the hundreds of witnesses at the pentagon and the tens of thousands of witnesses in New York are all collaberators or dupes in a massive conspiracy.

[DrS]

Has anyone seen the film 9/11 Ripple Effect? I looked in the debunking site Bob D posted but couldn't find a reference. Just wonder if anyone has any facts on flaws in the film at their fingertips?

[SimonC]

I'm not familiar with that particular film, DrS, but the Randi forum has a very comprehensive list of debunking resources in their conspiracies section. I hope that you will be able to find something helpful.

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

Which one? The official conspiracy theory or the alternative conspiracy theory?

I believe there is evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that was an inside job. Please question my empiricism, evidence, critical thinking and logic. As I will be paying yours close attention also. I would suggest that most of the psycho-babble that is applied to the conspiracy theorists by psychologists and so-called skeptics actually most often applies perfectly to themselves. I suggest the conspiracy deniers are guilty of the very charges that they accuse the conspiracy theorists of: Ignoring evidence, faith based decisions, emotional decision making.. presumption, to quickly basing ones opinion on partial evidence etc.

Let me ask this first question: It has been said that the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory is "non-falsifyable" which is problematic for psychologists, however, the Official version on the other hand is - and has been - thoroughly falsified. Why would anyone believe in such a thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory after it has been demonstrated as lies, Why ignore the evidence?

I look forward to some responses brimming with sharp thinking, logic and rationale.

[SimonC]

I believe there is evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that was an inside job.

Do you 'believe', or do you 'know' that such evidence exists?

Either way, please feel free to present it here.

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

Just believe, my opinion only. I'm not saying its fact, I'm saying I believe its fact. I acknowledge I could be wrong, as could you, naturally. I believe it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was an inside job. Do you fully support the findings if the 9/11 commission report? I'll assume you do, given your question..

Rather than try and discuss at exhaustive length about a vast bodies of evidence and their validity for each argument, I suggest since we're in a blog that has a focus on critical thinking and logic, we could discuss specifics in more detail, rather than demand I - or you lay out the entire case, start to finish - prior warnings - events of the day - physical evidence - witness testimony - financial ties - falsifications in the official theory - flaws in the official theory - flaws in the alternative theory etc. - could get a little too exhausive, and other experts have made better cases than I can personally, at least. Perhaps a general focus on which theory is more probable would be more manageable?

I asked a more specific question first of all, requiring a much simpler answer. Why do you believe such a wild, improbable conspiracy theory, supported by so little evidence, and contradicted by so much evidence?

It makes more sense you answering my initial question, baring in mind even the FBI (rex tomb FBI spokesperson) is reported to '[have] no hard evidence linking bin laden to 9/11', It seems reasonable to suggest it might take you less time to cover the evidence that supports your claim, rather than mine. Especially given that six of the ten 9/11 commissioners themselves express how they believe that the truth about the events of 9/11 were being covered up, investigations blocked. Also given that even NIST said in their own words that their WTC collapse explanation had only 'a low probability of occurrence.' Do you believe they occurred? And although NIST said the three WTC steel frames failed due to fire - this is exactly the opposite of what their own controlled repeatable experiments demonstrated. NIST lied about it, why would you believe their conclusion despite the fact that they lied about their own experiments having demonstrated the opposite? Do you have a logical answer for these particular points?

Can you explain the molten metal at the foot of WTC 1, 2 and 7 with the fire theory, their virtually freefall speeds, uniformly, symmetrically, totally, through the path of most resistance, were told for the first time in history high-rise steel-structured buildings collapsed due to fire - 3 times in one day - exhibiting all the hallmarks of controlled demolition - which are not accountable for with the official fire-collapse theory. Or can you? I have never heard even a slightly convincing argument to this day..

If that is still asking for too lengthy a rant, perhaps you could name a few top reasons you have for not believing the alternative conspiracy theory, which may give an ideal insight into general rationality of thinking, critical ability, logic, empiricism etc.. and I could name a few reasons why I disbelieve the official theory?

[9/11 conspiracy realist]

In order to focus on assessing one another's critical thinking and logic, reasoning and empiricism etc. regarding 9/11. I suggest that what tends to be more telling (with the aim of being to-the-point) in my experience - rather than two exhaustive collections of evidence like a court hearing on the entire vast subject of 9/11 - is some short statements of our general beliefs, in our own words.

A statement of my own: I suggest that people who deny 9/11 was even 'likely an inside job' preferring to believe that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the attacks highlight their lack of basic knowledge of the subject, namely that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were CIA assets right up until the day of 9/11, thus also suggesting it was an inside job at least in part by parts of US intelligence. How is it NOT even likely an inside job, when even the official cover story implicates the CIA? logical, empirical thinking? I believe it is, yes.

another very specific question that might raise interesting beliefs is the question of the cover-up. Do you acknowledge the massive cover-up? how do you explain the FBI hiding 86 videos of the pentagon crash, or the delayed/lack of real investigation, omissions in the investigation, including WTC7 and key witness statements such as william rodrigez? Why did they illegally remove the evidence at ground zero? why did NIST break the law and not look for thermite? basically, - why the cover-up if they're telling the truth? logical, empirical? no.

see if you can pick holes in my argument, and then whether you can make a (logical, empirical, critical thinking, rational) statement which supports your personal beliefs regarding 9/11..?

[SimonC]

Just believe, my opinion only. I'm not saying its fact, I'm saying I believe its fact. I acknowledge I could be wrong, as could you, naturally. I believe it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was an inside job. Do you fully support the findings if the 9/11 commission report? I'll assume you do, given your question..

You can assume anything you like.

I'm simply asking you to produce conclusive, verifiable evidence that the events of 9/11 were an 'inside job'. Please don't worry about being 'too exhaustive' - that is probably inevitable if you are to justify your claim.