Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

Until concrete evidence is provided, we cannot make such an assumption.
The default stance of this conspiracy theory is “Prove it WASN’T an inside job!”, which is much like Bush saying to Iraq “Prove you DON’T have weapons of mass destruction.” That’s a stance that proves no solid evidence, merely conjecture and speculation which hardly qualify as proof.

The 3rd structure in the WTC was on fire for HOURS because they basically pulled out and called it a lost cause. Building that are let to burn for hours tend to fall.

As for the pentagon, there was luggage found so unless Pentagon employees tend to bring fully packed luggage with them to work every day, it stands to reasons that an airplane might have crashed into it. Also, a plane flying at full speed into the Pentagon, a highly fortified structure, would cause a certain amount of disintegration (plane breaking apart) so while there wasn’t anything like a jet engine seen on the aftermath photos, there were other smaller parts found in the debris.

There were also a lot of phone calls made from the plane’s phones.

One last thing… if a plane didnt hit the pentagon, where’s the plane? Where’s the people on board? These things dont disappear into the ether.

No. The planes hit the outside of the building.

Yes, I do. There is a system operating in Canada and the USA called NORAD which serves to protect those countries from air attacks. I find it unusual that on 9/11 that system was unable to prevent the attacks so I think it was intentionally disabled to allow the attacks to occur.

Saw the various TV propoganda and I’m not buying into it.

No, but I’m also not a conspiracy theorist, so I tend to not believe in things like inside 9/11 jobs, chem trails and the like.

No, I do not. Which reminds me, that long documentary on 9/11 with lots of real footage was very interesting; I wouldn’t mind seeing that again.

I find conspiracy theories interesting to read about, but I don’t usually buy them.

Did anyone see the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen which was aired 6 months before 9/11 and predicted many aspects of the attack and some of the aftermath, including the invasion of Iraq?

I definitely think they took advantage of it, and blew it way out of proportion to get what they wanted.
But I’m on the fence regarding its “inside job” status.

Check out “this”“http://www.fluther.com/disc/32827/do-you-believe-that-911-was-an-inside-job/ thread, I think you’ll find it interesting!

Yes!

@doggywuv, please walk us through exactly how you think NORAD would have prevented the attacks. Seeing as they were commercial planes barely off course with their transponders off.

Are you seriously saying that NORAD scrambles fighter jets that instantly appear whenever a commercial plane goes off course? That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

@Qingu . . .referring to someone or their ideas as stupid makes you much the same.

That’s right, Blondesjon. Because no ideas are stupid. Except of course when someone has the idea that an idea is stupid. That’s what’s stupid.

I’m getting pretty sick of these little comments of yours where you basically masturbate about how “above the fray” you are. It must be difficult living your life without taking a meaningful position on any subject. Pretty annoying for the rest of us, too.

@Fluther. . .When did we vote @Qingu as our spokesperson? Why did I not recieve a memo?

[Mod Says] Stay on target…

Truly, no I do not think so. I do think that the attacks were used to get people behind the idea of going to war in Iraq.

One can think it’s an inside job without having to prove it. There’s no Fluther rule about having to provide proof.

That being said, I’m inclined to agree that it is very likely that a full-fledged proof hasn’t been presented here. Rather, partial proofs with best guess endings.

Regarding NORAD, the FAA as a matter of protocol is required to alert NORAD/air defense immediately after identifying a non-responsive aircraft. The FAA claims there was a delay due to confusion about whether the cases were actual hijackings or part of the hijacking/air defense drills that also took place that day. NORAD claims it was unable to respond in time due to most resources being tied up in those and other drills and because there was a mistaken perception that the attack originated from outside US airspace. Consequently, intercepting fighters headed in the wrong direction.

Normally, NORAD/air defense response would be all but immediate as in the case of the PGA golfer’s private jet where everyone on the plane lost consciousness due to a loss in cabin pressure. The response was near immediate and intercepting fighters followed the autopiloted plane across the country until it crashed. Granted, its transponder remained lit.

You guys should check out this thread. It’s ongoing STILL and it’s got tons of good information, I promise.

I think there would have to have been too many people in cahoots to pull it of without someone spilling the beens, possibly thousands. It’s just too massive of a scheme to do and get away with it.

@kevbo, yes, you can think whatever you want. Anyone can think whatever they want about anything; that goes with the territory of having brain-based consciousnesses. I could think that I am Napolean Bonaparte and I wouldn’t have to provide proof to post this opinion in Fluther. But nobody would believe me because this opinion makes no sense. And ideally, people would point out that my opinion is factually incorrect.

I didn’t see any partial proofs presented here; “here’ including both this thread and in my interactions on Fluther (or the internet in general). I’m curious to know what your standard of proof is. I think I explained mine on another thread.

About NORAD, the planes—if I’m not mistaken—hit their targets in less than 45 minutes after takeoff. You yourself explained various mitigating circumstances explaining a lack of response. And I’m still curious as to how they would even have managed to respond within that time frame… for all four planes. I mean, it’s entirely possible they DID respond to the plane that crashed in PA, though this was after the other planes hit their targets.

In any case, I fail to see anything out of the ordinary with the FAA’s or NORAD’s response. And to claim that any perceived irregularities even remotely indicate an “inside job” makes no damn sense. It is—to use an analogy I’ve mentioned before—like saying “evolutionists cannot explain every step in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum motor, therefore, the Mesopotamian sky god Yahweh must have created it.”

@Qingu . . .Do you actually start typing harder and harder and HARDER as you answer a thread?

You should stick with the teacup. The flagellum thing is tired, and I doubt it gets heard.

There’s a method of decisionmaking that involves listening to a variety of opinions and deciding for oneself what the best answer is based on the info available. Any claim is useful in that context. It may not be as precise as a logic-based, dialectical discussion, but it is an effective way to assimilate “close enough” conclusions for most people.

Plus, it has an added benefit of creating less ire all around, which is also valuable. In fact, maybe you should try spouting nonsensical opinions for a week just to see how good it feels.

As you might have noticed, I merely explained what the delays were for the benefit of the discussion since that point was raised. I didn’t (in this case) say anything about those facts indicating an inside job.

Okay. I ‘spose my comment should only be directed to the dude who said NORAD’s lack of action was evidence of an inside job, then.

I disagree that “any claim is useful” in that context. I think matters of history should be approached the same way that science approaches hypotheses and theories. In science, if someone has an idea behind a phenomenon, they propose a hypothesis. If that hypothesis goes through a gauntlet of testing and peer-review and application, it becomes “theory” and is considered proven.

Now, with matters of history, you can’t really run tests to “prove” something is true in a purely physical sense. But certain claims make sense and fit known facts better than others. So there is some similarity.

You seem to be saying that any claim is useful in the process. But scientists don’t just propose any random hypothesis. For a hypothesis to even be considered, it has to at least be reasonable and it has to be proposed from within the framework of the process. For example, every year, some nutjob claims to have disproven relativity and proposes a new hypothesis to explain gravity; but the scientific community (rightfully) just ignores these because (1) it didn’t actually disprove relativity and (2) the new hypothesis is basically magic.

Now, it’s easy to look at this and say “the scientific process is so insular! It doesn’t like questioning the mainstream scientific theories!” Well, yes, and no. On one hand, when a theory is established, it’s hard to knock it down. But it’s supposed to be hard because the theory works. It may not explain everything but it explains a lot of things, or else it wouldn’t enjoy theory-hood. So the threshold is high. If a new hypothesis doesn’t do a better job of tying together everything as an existing, established theory, that hypothesis ought to be rejected. And when a hypothesis doesn’t even come close to explaining and tying together as much as a theory then what exactly are scientists supposed to do except reject it outright as nonsense?

So, tying back to 9/11, we have a mainstream theory that does a good job of tying together a lot of known facts and observances. Like any theory, there are some unanswered questions (there always are, even in scientific theories). Now, someone might propose an alternate hypothesis that claims Flight 93 was not heroically wrested from terrorist control but shot down. That hypothesis hasn’t been proven, but I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis that at least is worth considering. It doesn’t introduce more holes than the mainstream theory.

However, the hypothesis that aliens shot lasers at the buildings is not even worth considering. It’s just ridiculous on the face of it. There’s no evidence to support it; either the claim that aliens shot lasers or that aliens even exist in the first place. It doesn’t explain anything; it doesn’t tie together anything. It’s just a random appeal to supernatural powers to explain a significant event.

I think it’s pretty clear that the “inside job” hypothesis resembles the second situation much more than the first. There is no evidence that a government conspiracy actually blew up the buildings, or remote-controlled the planes to fly into buildings, or that a drone struck the Pentagon—there is no evidence that any such conspiracy even exists in the first place. This hypothesis leaves far more questions unanswered than the mainstream theory, and is structurally very similar to appeals to supernatural powers or authorities.

I just don’t think it’s worth considering; I don’t think constantly proposing it adds anything to our understanding of what happened on 9/11. Again, I think it’s simply a manifestation of a kind of widespread, fallacious mindset that also motivates a lot of religious thought.

I’ll also add that if we have voice recordings of the hijackers of Flight 93 actually saying they’re going to crash the plane rather than risk the passengers storming the cockpit, any hypothesis that claims the plane was shot down is going to have to offer a feasible explanation for this rather huge coincidence, or offer evidence that the recordings were faked.

Funny… you don’t mention anywhere in that description of the scientific method the parts where you belittle and berate the bearers of conflicting hypotheses, but perhaps you’re just freestylin’.

Regarding 9/11, which came first, the hypothesis or the conclusion? Was the commission scientific in its approach in the manner you describe, or was some evidence left out because it didn’t fit the conclusion?

Also, sometimes scientists/inventors get killed or otherwise persuaded for discoveries or conclusions that don’t fit the agenda, so
regardless of the innate value
of the scientific method, its application is still subject to political will.

History books have taught for years that American Indians were few in number and lived lives as noble savages, when in fact they exerted tremendous influence on the landscape, likely numbered in the multi-millions and created civilizations on par with many in the pre-Columbus western world. Yet these mythological “facts” were used to justify manifest destiny, genocide, enslavement and colonialism. So while we waited for a hundred or more years for history’s scientific method to play itself out, Europeans managed to take up a bunch of land and kill off a bunch of Indians. I’m sure those Indians feel better now, though, knowing that we followed the process and eventually got to the right conclusion.

Similarly, while we’re stamping out the heresy of 9/11 truthiness, we’ll just do some mopping up of a few million brown folks and change a few of the rules about free speech, search and seizure
and the like. Maybe after you’re dead, we’ll discover that we didn’t get all the facts right. I’m sure there are some dead Iraqi babies that are glad we didn’t take so long to realize that there were no WMDs.

So, are you then childish, hypocritical and intellectually dishonest for floating your opinion (as you stated in another thread) that you are willing to believe that 93 was shot down despite compelling evidence provided in cockpit recordings? Are you now changing your mind or are you flirting with an infuriating fallacy deserving of maximum scorn and rebuke?

Lastly, Fluther is not the scientific method, and you are foolish to believe that you can apply that standard here (or in any other forum in which you participate) and make it stick. You can certainly enlighten us with your well thought out proofs, but throwing buckets of shit at people for not following your rules in a collective forum is hardly a way to win friends and influence people. Maybe that isn’t what you’re here for, and that’s fine as well, but then you’re more resembling a troll than a sincere participant. By your standard, more closely resembling the former over the latter would rightfully require us to discount your opinion.

Any claim is useful. This is called divergent thinking.

@Qingu NORAD should respond in a timely manner. In the case of 9/11 it responded over an hour and a half after the attack started. And when it did respond, it sent jet fighters that were scrambled from distant bases, not the bases closest to the area of the attack. And the fighters were not even flying full speed to reach the targets. Isn’t this obvious reason to be suspicious?
Take a look at this page for more information.

I love this list. Check out number 4.

The 10 Most Popular Conspiracy Theories by Vicki Santillano

1. Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone (or possibly at all).
Perhaps only 9/11 comes close to matching the multitude of theories and interest surrounding JFK’s assassination in 1963. Kennedy was shot while riding in a presidential motorcade with his wife in Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald was fingered as the gunman in the Texas School Book Depository that day, but he was shot and killed just two days later, which created a great deal of suspicion. Also, witnesses claim they heard shots coming from a grassy knoll near the motorcade, creating the mystery of the second shooter. The CIA, the Mafia, Fidel Castro, and Lyndon Johnson are often listed as the masterminds behind the murder and cover-up.

2. Princess Diana was killed on purpose.
When the People’s Princess was killed in a car crash resulting from overzealous paparazzi in Paris, the public demanded answers. It was hard for them to believe that such a compassionate, celebrated figure could die so senselessly, so it didn’t take long for theories to surface about why certain people in power would want her dead. Some think she was pregnant and planning to marry her boyfriend, Dodi Al-Fayed (son to the owner of Harrod’s and Paris’s Ritz Hotel), and planning to become Muslim, which might’ve worried the British Royal Family, given her influence on the people. Others state that the family wanted her out of the way so that people would support Prince Charles’s remarriage. There are also optimists who believe she faked her death to escape the public eye.

3. AIDS is a man-made disease.
Those in the scientific community generally believe HIV originated from a strain of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in western African monkeys. But when a group of 500 African Americans were surveyed in a 2005 study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, over half of them said that AIDS was created by the government. Conspiracy theories about why the government might have created the virus ranged from population control to the weakening of racial minority groups and gay people. Some also say that there’s a cure for AIDS being back held by the government for similar reasons.

4. The government was involved in 9/11.
This is currently the most researched conspiracy theory on the Internet. Theories abound about the role of the U.S. government in the events of September 11, 2001, but most state that either the Bush administration had previous knowledge of the attacks and didn’t act or that it orchestrated the entire thing. Both versions center on the belief that Bush and company wanted to gain more power quickly and get the support of the people. It’s been said that the World Trade Center towers came down as a result of planted explosives, that a plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon, and that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania because it was shot down—a theory that was only fueled when Donald Rumsfeld accidentally said during a 2004 speech that terrorists shot it down.

5. Elvis never really left the building.
Many people believe that Elvis is still alive and kicking. There have been numerous Elvis sightings throughout the years and most people point to his incorrect gravestone—it says his middle name is “Aaron,” but it’s spelled “Aron” on his birth certificate—as the key piece of evidence that his death is a fraud. The reasons for the faked death vary between him wanting to get away from the public to him being put under witness protection by the FBI for being a drug informant—a rumor started by him meeting with Nixon in 1970 and telling him he wanted to help eradicate drug abuse.

6. The 1969 Apollo moon landing didn’t happen.
At this point, the faked moon landing theory has mostly been debunked, but there are still a few ardent followers out there. They cite altered pictures and videos, missing design blueprints, and faulty recordings as evidence of the forgery. One of the most popular reasons given for faking the famous moon walk is that the Kennedy administration wanted to win the “space race” with the Soviet Union and instill public faith in NASA. However, most Americans still believe that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong walked on the moon that famous day in July.

7. A UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.
When ranch manager Mac Brazel came across crash debris near his property in 1947, he didn’t know what to make of it and alerted local authorities. That same day, the Roswell Army Air Field sent out a press release that stated a “flying disc” was found; later, this was retracted and the U.S. military told the public it was a fallen weather balloon. This slip sparked a huge conspiracy theory about the government attempting to cover up evidence of UFOs and alien existence; some even say there were alien bodies found in the crash. Now the story is that the balloon was part of Project Mogul, the government’s attempt to pick up on Soviet Union nuclear tests. As a result, Roswell has become a big tourist spot for extraterrestrial enthusiasts.

8. Global warming is a hoax.
Despite Al Gore’s influential documentary and the beliefs of most scientists, some people believe global warming isn’t actually happening. Sure, the fact that Earth’s temperatures are steadily rising are irrefutable, but supporters of this theory believe it’s due to technology created by those in charge for a variety of reasons—keeping the public in a state of panic to maintain control and decreasing world population being two of the main ones. Gore, the United Nations, and Maurice Strong (a man heavily involved in environmental politics) are often named by conspiracy theorists as purveyors of the global warming “myth.”

9. Shakespeare didn’t write all those plays.
The most famous playwright in the world might not have existed at all. Conspiracy theorists have been debating Shakespeare’s life for years, arguing that William Shakespeare was just a pen name used by a group of writers, which might explain why his signature varied throughout his career. Others think that he did exist, but that he was simply a figure for another person to write plays through, such as Christopher Marlowe, Sir Francis Bacon, or Queen Elizabeth I. The main argument against Shakespeare is the fact that he was uneducated, which seems rather elitist. Regardless, this theory still generates a lot of interest, ranking fifth in Google’s conspiracy theory searches.

10. Reptilian humanoids control all of us.
This has to be one of the wackiest theories I’ve encountered so far. It was started by a 1999 book written by David Icke called, The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World. In it, he explains that most world leaders—including quite a few U.S. presidents—are actually shape-shifting reptilian beings from a different planet who start wars and are responsible for horrific events like 9/11 in order to promote fear and hatred, which gives them strength. Oh, and they’re seven feet tall. Reptilian humanoids … who knew?

As silly as they can sound, there’s something to be said for learning about conspiracy theories. They can offer totally new and unexpected ways of looking at events, even if you don’t believe them to be accurate. And if anything, they at least suggest that as crazy and ludicrous as our ideas and beliefs feel at times, there’s always someone out there who takes it one step further—unless you’re one of the ones who believe in shape-shifting reptilian overlords … sorry, but you might just take the cake.

http://www.alternet.org/story/140296/the_10_most_popular_conspiracy_theories/?page=entire

@mattbrowne The MLK assassination didn’t make the list?

@benjaminlevi – Maybe number 11.

I am not a conspiracy nut but there are too many odd things that don’t add up. Now, with the recue workers and families speaking out, I think there is complicity here. These are the only 3 steel frame building to collapse due to fire EVER. Add to that the fact that Larry Silverstein made $7 billion it’s hard to deny. In an investigation the first question usually is “Who benefits most”. The second is “Who has the means” That is some of the most secure airspace on the planet. Why did Cheney take direct control of NORAD?

The CIA knew about the plot and let it happen

It was a put up job by News International and the BBC to create a sensational news item

yes it was.