• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

9/11: The September 11th Attacks

Mythopoeika said:
Perhaps, but then they'd have to add it to all the webcam and phone footage that people recorded as well.
Click to expand...
That's a good point except there is webcam, phone and media footage that show no planes as well. Originally on youtube there were many more videos than now that showed no planes. Bit by bit over the years most of them have vanished.

At the time I was watching a news channel, I don't know which one, and turned it on just before the second plane/explosion. They went live to an American news channel with a camera on the towers. A few minutes later there was an explosion in the second tower and they referred to it as such with no mention of a plane. I certainly didn't see a large plane and they didn't either. The news feed then went back to the UK channel and next time the same footage was shown a short while later, there was the plane going in to the second tower. I was a bit confused and thought that maybe I just didn't see the plane. Now, 20 years on, I dunno. I still think had the tower been hit by a plane in the original footage I would have seen it just as the American presenters would have.

Also, there is no way of knowing if the videos that showed the planes came from genuine people or were placed on youtube by whoever wanted that shown instead of no planes. Or how many have footage showing no planes that haven't posted them on social media. It's one of those 'down the rabbit hole' type of scenarios.

I think it highly unlikely that footage showing no planes had had the planes 'removed'. Out of the two, planes added or planes removed, I would have to go with planes added. In conclusion, for me, there's no proof either way just grounds of probability that the planes were added. I could be wrong of course.
 
A cousin lived/still lives just under half a mile away from the World Trade Centre in Lower Manhattan.

She was at home when the planes hit.

Heard a loud bang, thought it was workmen in her block.

Then walked into a room on the other side of her apartment, looked out the window, saw the the buildings on fire, and suffered severe shock, screaming in terror.

She developed cancer 10 years later.
You might say that a late middle aged woman getting cancer is not rare, but 60% of the residents of her apartment block developed cancer within a decade of 9/11.

She believes it is from breathing the air that day and the following weeks.
 
Last edited:
Just to make this crystal clear: I personally know dozens of people who saw both planes hit both towers. It would have been extraordinarily difficult to have been in the area at the time and not see them. The people include students at a school in Brooklyn whose windows as always gave them a clear view of the buildings, and who spent the day not just seeing the planes hit but also watching as people jumped off the roofs and as the buildings fell . If someone is emotionally desperate enough to be seeking fantasy, they should choose a different one to spend their time on.
 
Lb8535 said:
Just to make this crystal clear: I personally know dozens of people who saw both planes hit both towers. It would have been extraordinarily difficult to have been in the area at the time and not see them. The people include students at a school in Brooklyn whose windows as always gave them a clear view of the buildings, and who spent the day not just seeing the planes hit but also watching as people jumped off the roofs and as the buildings fell . If someone is emotionally desperate enough to be seeking fantasy, they should choose a different one to spend their time on.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear. You have to wonder whether there will ever be enough evidence to convince conspiracy theorists, as there's an absolute mountain of evidence that those planes hit the WTC. Other theories about 9/11 are perhaps worth exploring, as Cochise alluded to earlier, but the idea that so many people colluded to perpetuate that 'illusion' is absolute nonsense. Some of the more 'out there' conspiracies just give far too much credit to the efficacy of government in my opinion, as is the case with most branches of conspiracy theory.

I was so young when 9/11 happened that I didn't know what terrorism was, and although I found it shocking and horrible, I don't think I could really understand the reality and significance of that day. The older I've gotten, the more I've been affected by it. I find the footage and stories much more moving than I used to, and I think the heroism showed by many of those involved was incredible. I really hope to visit New York one day and visit the memorial.
 
The FBI is finally releasing documents related to the Saudis and their links with 9/11.

"The FBI has released a newly declassified document that looks into connections between Saudi citizens in the US and two of the 9/11 attackers.

Relatives of victims have long urged the release of the files, arguing Saudi officials had advance knowledge but did not try to stop the attacks.

But the document provides no evidence that the Saudi government was linked to the 9/11 plot.

Fifteen of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Ahead of the declassification, the Saudi embassy in Washington welcomed the release and once again denied any link between the kingdom and the hijackers, describing such claims as "false and malicious"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58533538
 
This has popped up on my MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...nt-after-biden-order/ar-AAOlHbi?ocid=msedgntp

As an aside i am reading 9.11 The Conspiracy Theories by David Gardner (available for £4 from Asda at the moment if anyone interested).

I haven't read the full thread so apologies for any repetition. It has been argued that the CIA withheld information from the FBI that could have stopped 9/11 in its tracks. People were allowed to roam free because the CIA allegedly thought that they could get more info on Al Queda through spies. allegedly this was with knowledge of Saudi Arabia. It wasn't meant to happen, by the time it did the shit had hit the fan and the FBI could not act because they did not have the information.

Nosmo King beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
Spudrick68 said:
This has popped up on my MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...nt-after-biden-order/ar-AAOlHbi?ocid=msedgntp

As an aside i am reading 9.11 The Conspiracy Theories by David Gardner (available for £4 from Asda at the moment if anyone interested).

I haven't read the full thread so apologies for any repetition. It has been argued that the CIA withheld information from the FBI that could have stopped 9/11 in its tracks. People were allowed to roam free because the CIA allegedly thought that they could get more info on Al Queda through spies. allegedly this was with knowledge of Saudi Arabia. It wasn't meant to happen, by the time it did the shit had hit the fan and the FBI could not act because they did not have the information.

Nosmo King beat me to it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the kind of thing I was alluding to. But even then it's not necessarily a conspiracy, more a consequence of the extreme suspicion different agencies seem to develop for each other. I believe similar rivalries and hostilities exist between the various British agencies, or at least a lot of writings tend to suggest so.
 
From Jason Colavito's email Newsletter • Vol. 19 • Issue 11 • September 12, 2021 •

This week I sent my son off to preschool for the first time. Between the stress of getting ready for school (and the barrage of last-minute rule changes), the anxieties it apparently triggered in me from my own school days, and worries about my son being exposed to COVID-19, I’ve found it difficult to focus on doing much writing this week. I probably should say something about Donald Trump, Jr. announcing on Twitter that he and his father would mark the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks with a Q-and-A session in which he promised to ask the ex-president about Area 51 and space aliens. But I didn’t have the energy to care.
 
Cloudbusting said:
Hear, hear. You have to wonder whether there will ever be enough evidence to convince conspiracy theorists, as there's an absolute mountain of evidence that those planes hit the WTC. Other theories about 9/11 are perhaps worth exploring, as Cochise alluded to earlier, but the idea that so many people colluded to perpetuate that 'illusion' is absolute nonsense. Some of the more 'out there' conspiracies just give far too much credit to the efficacy of government in my opinion, as is the case with most branches of conspiracy theory.

I was so young when 9/11 happened that I didn't know what terrorism was, and although I found it shocking and horrible, I don't think I could really understand the reality and significance of that day. The older I've gotten, the more I've been affected by it. I find the footage and stories much more moving than I used to, and I think the heroism showed by many of those involved was incredible. I really hope to visit New York one day and visit the memorial.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's obvious that the people who spend their waking lives "investigating" this and other nonsense have very little real world experience . You learn in daily life and especially in organizations that It is not possible for more than two people to keep a secret (and I'm not so sure about the other guy), and the impossibility increases if that were possible over the passage of time. It also helps to be able to tell the difference between the results of conspiracy and the results of incompetence.
 
Cloudbusting said:
Hear, hear. You have to wonder whether there will ever be enough evidence to convince conspiracy theorists, as there's an absolute mountain of evidence that those planes hit the WTC. Other theories about 9/11 are perhaps worth exploring, as Cochise alluded to earlier, but the idea that so many people colluded to perpetuate that 'illusion' is absolute nonsense. Some of the more 'out there' conspiracies just give far too much credit to the efficacy of government in my opinion, as is the case with most branches of conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy theorism is a component of evidence denial. This could be science denial, forensics denial, history denial. Each piece of evidence on it's own can be dismissed in many cases (although, when taken as a whole, that evidence usually points to particular conclusion, but the denialists only have to worry about dismissing evidence one item at a time as it's thrown at them). But when the evidence is utterly inconsistent with the denialism, conspiracy theory steps in to explain why. The evidence was faked, witnesses are in on it, the government's always lying (that last one probably is true, but almost certainly never for the reasons a few tin-foil-hatters have figured out). So, by the time something's become what we generally refer to as a conspiracy theory, they've already gone beyond arguing the evidence in any realistic sense. They've failed to prove anything and are shielding that failure with fantasy.

I've said this before; a conspiracy theory bridges the gaps between what someone has chosen to believe and what's being said by those in the best position to know better.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Conspiracy theorism is a component of evidence denial. This could be science denial, forensics denial, history denial. Each piece of evidence on it's own can be dismissed in many cases (although, when taken as a whole, that evidence usually points to particular conclusion, but the denialists only have to worry about dismissing evidence one item at a time as it's thrown at them). But when the evidence is utterly inconsistent with the denialism, conspiracy theory steps in to explain why. The evidence was faked, witnesses are in on it, the government's always lying (that last one probably is true, but almost certainly never for the reasons a few tin-foil-hatters have figured out). So, by the time something's become what we generally refer to as a conspiracy theory, they've already gone beyond arguing the evidence in any realistic sense. They've failed to prove anything and are shielding that failure with fantasy.

I've said this before; a conspiracy theory bridges the gaps between what someone has chosen to believe and what's being said by those in the best position to know better.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the question I was in the habit of asking the conspiracy nuts back when this was more of a thing: If no plane hit the Pentagon (or Tower One or Tower Two, depending on the discussion) then where is that plane? The only time I recall getting a response, it was something along the lines of, "We haven't figured that out yet."

9-11 seems to be just about the time when significant numbers of people began openly claiming to believe utter nonsense. The situation has not improved.
 
Austin Popper said:
This reminds me of the question I was in the habit of asking the conspiracy nuts back when this was more of a thing: If no plane hit the Pentagon (or Tower One or Tower Two, depending on the discussion) then where is that plane? The only time I recall getting a response, it was something along the lines of, "We haven't figured that out yet."
Click to expand...

Yeah. In their minds, they think they're telling you they haven't found what is (for them) the evidence they need to answer that question. What they really mean is they haven't fabricated a response to that question. But they will; it only needs to be a conspiracy to hide the evidence or create false evidence. The slightest thing that doesn't make sense to them (bearing in mind they're not actually there or studying the raw evidence for answers) is all that's needed to support their belief that there's a conspiracy.

For these reasons, I no longer get involved in the online debates about these subjects. It used to be my pastime, and I loved the research and the acerbic wit and the cornering morons with argument after argument. But it takes so much time, and even when you tear down some soundbite they're fond of with sourced science and logic, they turn up on another forum saying the same damn thing. I came to the conclusion that, even though they'd lost the argument, they assumed the science thrown at them must be faulty because they were sure they were right. Why? Because it's a conspiracy. You can't beat that. It was fun for a time.

Who was it who said that arguing with the intelligent is difficult, but arguing with a fool is impossible?
 
Lord Lucan said:
Worth watching.

9/11 Attacks in Real Time​

From the YouTube Channel:

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED This is a real time compilation of the 9/11 attacks on the United States made up of both news coverage and amateur videos, spanning a 110 minute period between 8:46 am and 10:36 am (EST) on September 11, 2001. The video and audio switch to the most informative and relevant sources, audio switches indicated by a green flash around the source. The combination of the different sources, all in real time, provides a birds-eye view that allows immersion, serving to more accurately convey the raw emotion and terror witnessed on this day. I put together this compilation to preserve the true reality of 9/11 as faithfully as I could, and to create a valuable resource for anyone interested in the events. It is important that 9/11 not be forgotten. I have included every video I could match to an exact time. Some footage that could not be matched to an exact time has not been included, and footage may exist that is not included here. Tiny differences in sync may be present as it is difficult to keep everything in sync over nearly two hours, but I have tried my best to keep it simultaneous.

Click to expand...
I watched this today, and I honestly think it debunks at least a couple of the conspiracy theories right there, IMHO; there were certainly planes flown into the buildings (there's just far too much footage and too many eye witnesses for the planes not to have existed) and I can't see how the towers could have been brought down by explosives, unless they were planted all the way up the buildings; they quite clearly both collapse from the point of damage downwards.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Conspiracy theorism is a component of evidence denial. This could be science denial, forensics denial, history denial. Each piece of evidence on it's own can be dismissed in many cases (although, when taken as a whole, that evidence usually points to particular conclusion, but the denialists only have to worry about dismissing evidence one item at a time as it's thrown at them). But when the evidence is utterly inconsistent with the denialism, conspiracy theory steps in to explain why. The evidence was faked, witnesses are in on it, the government's always lying (that last one probably is true, but almost certainly never for the reasons a few tin-foil-hatters have figured out). So, by the time something's become what we generally refer to as a conspiracy theory, they've already gone beyond arguing the evidence in any realistic sense. They've failed to prove anything and are shielding that failure with fantasy.

I've said this before; a conspiracy theory bridges the gaps between what someone has chosen to believe and what's being said by those in the best position to know better.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's not reasonable to argue from the existence of unsustainable conspiracy theories that there are no such things as conspiracies. Historically there certainly have been - the Dreyfus affair for example.

So one has to apply tests to alleged conspiracies. Just as the way theories in science eventually either get proved to be nonsense (phlogiston, the 'ether') , proved and accepted, or remain theories because as yet no-one has come up with either successful proof or adequate disproof.
 
Cochise said:
Yes, but it's not reasonable to argue from the existence of unsustainable conspiracy theories that there are no such things as conspiracies. Historically there certainly have been - the Dreyfus affair for example.

So one has to apply tests to alleged conspiracies. Just as the way theories in science eventually either get proved to be nonsense (phlogiston, the 'ether') , proved and accepted, or remain theories because as yet no-one has come up with either successful proof or adequate disproof.
Click to expand...
Certainly true. Some of the known conspiracies have been more shocking than imagined ones. Terrible conspiracies have existed and, almost certainly, terrible conspiracies are ongoing. But the point, with reference to why no amount of evidence will convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong, is not whether the beliefs they've invested in could be true or frankly whether they are true. The point is that the people who have followed this path don't have the evidence to know what the truth is, but fill the gaps with a theory about a conspiracy they also can't prove. By the time they've become what we refer to as a 'conspiracy theorist', they've already built a structure into their beliefs that makes it unassailable to reason and evidence.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Certainly true. Some of the known conspiracies have been more shocking than imagined ones. Terrible conspiracies have existed and, almost certainly, terrible conspiracies are ongoing. But the point, with reference to why no amount of evidence will convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong, is not whether the beliefs they've invested in could be true or frankly whether they are true. The point is that the people who have followed this path don't have the evidence to know what the truth is, but fill the gaps with a theory about a conspiracy they also can't prove. By the time they've become what we refer to as a 'conspiracy theorist', they've already built a structure into their beliefs that makes it unassailable to reason and evidence.
Click to expand...
There is some very profound point there that is applicable to far more than conspiracy theorists. There is some point in a lot of disputes where one side, confronted with contradictory evidence, effectively starts sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'la la la...' I don't have the words to put it more profoundly than that.
 
Cochise said:
So one has to apply tests to alleged conspiracies. Just as the way theories in science eventually either get proved to be nonsense (phlogiston, the 'ether') , proved and accepted, or remain theories because as yet no-one has come up with either successful proof or adequate disproof.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, but ...

Conspiracy theories are grounded / situated in the messy realm of interpersonal / social interactions rather than the more solid materialistic universals hard science has staked out as its foundations.

Save for critical - one may even claim 'scientific' - analyses of substantive evidence only peripherally suggesting conspiratorial actions, everything comes down to "he said / she said" in a court of law, at a religious pulpit, at a political podium, or among the chatter of social media.
 
EnolaGaia said:
That's a good point, but ...

Conspiracy theories are grounded / situated in the messy realm of interpersonal / social interactions rather than the more solid materialistic universals hard science has staked out as its foundations.

Save for critical - one may even claim 'scientific' - analyses of substantive evidence only peripherally suggesting conspiratorial actions, everything comes down to "he said / she said" in a court of law, at a religious pulpit, at a political podium, or among the chatter of social media.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the standard of proof is lesser. (or more-or-less nonexistent in your latter three examples). I'm kind of not sure what point I'm making any more, other than you have to have neither a closed mind nor a hopelessly wide-open one.
 
Just on YouTube watching something completely unrelated when this video popped up in the side bar as suggested viewing.
It's 7 1/2 minute video from the 70's on the construction of the World Trade Towers and makes for some interesting viewing:

 
With regard to the earlier discussion of what the CIA knew and when, resulting in the FBI being hamstrung in incident response, this is a classic example of where conspiracy theories can come from.

There is a great piece of wisdom known as Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

There is also the first corollary:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence", Robert Heinlein

But for this situation it is the second that is most enlightening.

Second Corollary:
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by incompetence," Unknown

The CIA f*cked up, and they knew it. As an agency, it sought to protect itself by playing down the extent and the breadth of that utter cluster f*ck, and it was the FBI that looked bad as a result, but those cackhanded efforts to arse cover and hide incompetence are what resulted in a wider stench that was attributed to conspiracy, as opposed to incompetence.

The result was the Department of Homeland Security — perhaps the greatest humiliation for the CIA, NSA and intelligence community in general.

It would appear the CIA, in thinking they knew more than they did, utterly failed to grasp the extent of support for extremism within their own supposed allied circle, and the extent to which that extremism was organised.


That would ceratinly be my take on it.
 
I've been a 9/11 enthusiast for years and the traditional conspiracy theories seem to me to be handy tools for deflecting the negligence of the CIA and the Saudi involvement. There are people who the victims families could hold accountable but as long as weirdos think the planes were holograms or that you can prep buildings that fucking size for demolition using 2001 technology and no one would notice and are prepared to shout about it, they are less likely to end up facing consequences for their actions or inactions.

The real cover ups have nothing to do with silly anti semitic fever dreams or people not realising how a controlled demolition works.

I'd recommend listening to the conflicted podcast about the 9/11 root causes and its effect on the world since and reading The Eleventh Day by Robyn Swann and Anthony Summers, a book that asks some serious questions about the arrogance and negligence of American security agencies.
 
Last edited:
Rappinghood said:
I've been a 9/11 enthusiast for years and the traditional conspiracy theories seem to me to be handy tools for deflecting the negligence of the CIA and the Saudi involvement. There are people who the victims families could hold accountable but as long as weirdos think the planes were holograms or that you can prep buildings that fucking size for demolition using 2001 technology and no one would notice and are prepared to shout about it, they are less likely to end up facing consequences for their actions or inactions.

The real cover ups have nothing to do with silly anti semitic fever dreams or people not realising how a controlled demolition works.

I'd recommend listening to the conflicted podcast about the 9/11 root causes and its effect on the world since and reading The Eleventh Day by Robyn Swann and Anthony Summers, a book that asks some serious questions about the arrogance and negligence of American security agencies.
Click to expand...

Welcome. Good post.
 
Somebody at Fox could be in trouble:

FE_8abdXMAQAQUK.jpeg.jpg


Closer than this, but Starbuck did manage to throw in the word 'collapse'.

e60NfrUHVit_Ex9qoOczNQTRgn8mXefnRxCDoXHzP94.jpg
 
Somewhat surprisingly, unseen and good quality footage of the second plane crashing has surfaced.


I haven't yet had a chance to research the ins and outs of who filmed it and why it has gone unseen, but it's certainly arresting.
 
Yithian said:
Somewhat surprisingly, unseen and good quality footage of the second plane crashing has surfaced.


I haven't yet had a chance to research the ins and outs of who filmed it and why it has gone unseen, but it's certainly arresting.
Click to expand...

Never seen that before in 20 years.

What happened to that footage from the Czech tourist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top