I believe 9/11 was an inside job now

[Doubting Thomas]

Or, alternatively, they could have just detonated lots of bombs around NY. Same effect, maybe even the same casualties, but arguably a lot less planning required.

Exactly. Just plant and set off a few bombs in different places, perhaps in front of different important or well-known buildings, then round up a few Muslims holding anti-US sentiments, then claim they're members of al-Qaida, and invent evidence linking them to the bombings. Claim that there's a massive a-Q conspiracy to attack different cities across the country, declare a war on terror and start invading the Middle East. Much simpler and easier than an incredibly complicated 9/11 scenario which may or may not even work as planned.

And frankly, if 9/11 were an inside job, what's to gain by crashing an aircraft in a field in Pennsylvania?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Or, alternatively, they could have just detonated lots of bombs around NY. Same effect, maybe even the same casualties, but arguably a lot less planning required.

Exactly. Just plant and set off a few bombs in different places, perhaps in front of different important or well-known buildings, then round up a few Muslims holding anti-US sentiments, then claim they're members of al-Qaida, and invent evidence linking them to the bombings. Claim that there's a massive a-Q conspiracy to attack different cities across the country, declare a war on terror and start invading the Middle East. Much simpler and easier than an incredibly complicated 9/11 scenario which may or may not even work as planned.

And frankly, if 9/11 were an inside job, what's to gain by crashing an aircraft in a field in Pennsylvania?

What about a dirty bomb? Something small but with high fear impact? That would have taken literally no planning at all considering how many materials/resources the US govt. presumably already has.

Invent a story about radicals getting their hands on it (include Russia to re-kindle old patriotic values from the right), and gaining access to the states to detonate it (or, even better, make them internal terrorists, which would have the same net effect of increasing the mandate of surveillance if that was indeed the ultimate goal).

This would also double the mandate for ensuring the elimination of WMDs further down the line.

Man, I should totally be involved in this! I'd be a super star at instigating international conflicts. If you're watching Obama, put me on the team, I'm ready coach.

[Doubting Thomas]

But think about how incredibly complex 9/11 would have to be if it were actually a big conspiracy.

First, you'd have to get four airliners and fit them with remote control operation and be able to control them from hundreds of miles away. They'd probably need to be controlled via signals from satellites. Then somehow divert the actual four flights from NYC and make them land on an island somewhere and keep all the passengers from leaving. Then at the same time you make the actual flights disappear from radar you'd have to make the four empty aircraft appear on radar in their spot, since we have radar tracks of all four aircraft.

Alternatively, make it look like those four flights were leaving NYC but have the planes completely empty and remotely controlled, then pay off thousands of people to lie afterwards and say their loved ones were on board those planes.

Or, alternatively, you remotely control the aircraft toward their targets, and at some point you transport them into another dimension while beaming holograms that you invented to make it look like aircraft are hitting buildings, and then set off carefully hidden bombs inside the buildings where the hologram aircraft would appear to be crashing into the buildings.

Set off a massive bomb at the Pentagon and pay off dozens of people to lie about seeing an airliner crash into it.

Crash one of the aircraft in a field for no reason. Claim that the passengers fought back.

After the twin towers have been burning for a while, set off careful explosions in the bases of the buildings which destroy the structure's internal support but aren't noticed by anyone on the ground. Somehow make these second explosions collapse the buildings from the top down.

Hours later after the twin towers collapse, set off explosions in WTC7 after it's been burning for hours and demolish it for no reason when none of the news media are even watching or reporting on this particular building.

Remove all wires & other evidence leading to detonation charges after the buildings collapse so nobody will discover they were controlled detonations.

Keep the thousands of people involved quiet for 12 years about their role in killing thousands of innocent people just so the military industrial complex can go to war in the Middle East.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I agree. I think there are a myriad of easier and more efficient ways to get to the current status quo in American/international affairs than crashing a couple of planes into some buildings and then expecting everyone to keep quiet about it.

I mean, has the US even benefitted from the 9/11 attacks? Especially in the long term?

[Doubting Thomas]

Yeah, our military got some more practice dropping bombs and shooting people. Who cares if we had to destroy our economy to do it?

[Rayaan]

Why would 9/11 result in this? No doubt it has, but there's literally thousands of other ways that could result in the same. I mean, bracketing out the fact you've quoted what appears to be a foregone conclusion (that an expanding surveillance op was the ultimate aim, which of course, has nothing to back it up), why would crashing the planes be viewed as the best way to achieve such a thing? Why not just crash the plane into the White House? A lot less damage, just as much (if not more!) impact. The WTC are/were no way near as sacred to the US image than the White house itself, so it seems crashing something into the WTC was a bit superfluous.

The method they chose might seem a bit superfluous, but the most probably reason for that, in my opinion, is that the government (especially the CIA and NSA) had knowledge of the the attacks at least months before the day of the actual attack. Then, after knowing that, the government simply took the opportunity to create a false-flag by helping the identified terrorists to achieve their plan of attack on America instead of trying to stop them. See below.

AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS

President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a ''closely held intelligence report'' that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was ''historical'' in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.

Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to ''several people who have seen the memo.'' The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us/aug...all&src=pm

Author James Bamford looked into the performance of the NSA in his 2008 book, The Shadow Factory, and found that it had been closely monitoring the 9/11 hijackers as they moved freely around the United States and communicated with Osama bin Laden's operations center in Yemen. The NSA had even tapped bin Laden's satellite phone, starting in 1996.

"The NSA never alerted any other agency that the terrorists were in the United States and moving across the country towards Washington," Bamford told PBS

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/PBS_NSA_tr..._0127.html


And listen to this from 29:50 to 34:35:

None of what you've provided, whilst very compelling in some instances, and anecdotal in others, constitutes anything towards what I would regard as hard evidence that seriously creates a dent in the 'official story'.

I know that none of what I posted here constitute an actual, hard evidence. There is no hard evidence that the government wasn't involved in it either. Rather, what I'm doing is providing some information about 9/11 and what I'm saying is that the overall picture that I see - after connecting all the dots - is that it was an inside job although I don't claim that I am very sure about it.

And there are many things that officials have intentionally suppressed or destroyed so that other people are not able investigate them, which I think tells us something.

F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements

FAA Manager Mangled, Cut, Destroyed 9/11 Tapes

Also:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/us/bus...panel.html


Now it is your job to connect the dots.

[Doubting Thomas]

Author James Bamford looked into the performance of the NSA in his 2008 book, The Shadow Factory, and found that it had been closely monitoring the 9/11 hijackers as they moved freely around the United States and communicated with Osama bin Laden's operations center in Yemen. The NSA had even tapped bin Laden's satellite phone, starting in 1996.

"The NSA never alerted any other agency that the terrorists were in the United States and moving across the country towards Washington," Bamford told PBS

If this had happened under Obama's administration, all the nutters would be claiming he was complicit and calling for his impeachment. Hell, they already do. But somehow W gets a free pass.

[Faith No More]

Also:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/us/bus...panel.html


Now it is your job to connect the dots.

The destruction of any such documents, or any information regarding 9/11 for that matter, works equally in the favor of the claim that the Bush administration was covering their ass. A small group of men living in caves in Afghanistan subverted the U.S. government and its ability to keep its citizens safe, so of course they are going to start destroying information. It doesn't prove anything.

[Rayaan]

The destruction of any such documents, or any information regarding 9/11 for that matter, works equally in the favor of the claim that the Bush administration was covering their ass. A small group of men living in caves in Afghanistan subverted the U.S. government and its ability to keep its citizens safe, so of course they are going to start destroying information. It doesn't prove anything.

But the citizens will know that anyways (i.e. the government's failure to keep them safe), so then why still destroy them? And why destroy the 9/11 tapes even?

The fact that they destroyed them I think lends only more support to the 9/11 conspiracy although, yes, it does not 100% prove anything.

If this had happened under Obama's administration, all the nutters would be claiming he was complicit and calling for his impeachment. Hell, they already do. But somehow W gets a free pass.

Maybe ... or maybe not. Either way, that doesn't necessarily falsify what you just quoted.