What is the truth behind 9/11?

[Nirvanam]

Sensitive topic, this one. Nevertheless, lets hear the arguments on the truth value of the 9/11 story.

The official story is that 19 terrorists (5+5+5+4) hijacked 4 planes (with small knives/ box cutters) and crashed them into symbolic buildings as an act of war on the free world. Subsequently,
a: the two Twin Towers: WTC 1 and 2, fell down to the ground
b: there were damages to a particular wing of the Pentagon
c. there was a huge hole in the ground near Pennsylvania where allegedly the 4th plane fell
d. WTC 7 collapsed whereas WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not

Apparently one of the main clues that led the FBI to the terrorists was the passport of one of them which somehow was not badly damaged and fell to the Earth when the plane went into the building.

From a scientific perspective and a general logical perspective, is the story given by the US Govt, true?

I am no great fan of the US Government (although me wife is American) and am neither inclined to believe that jihadis will not do something like that. I have seen the Government version as shown in documentaries on 911 on Nat Geo, Discovery, etc and I have also seen the version presented by the "Independent" Media. Either the Govt is hiding something or the Independent Media are cooking up something. What according to you, is the truth value of the Government's version? I am concerned more about the Government's version because it directly influenced and changed the way we live.

[Alan C.]

[edited - admin]

[Nirvanam]

Thanks Maria for not displaying the post from Alan C (I read it before you got a chance to edit it). I wouldn't have responded to it anyway, but maybe others would have and hence I feel you made the right decision.
Anyway, now that that is over...is this a topic that is "taboo" from a Humanism perspective? If so, you can delete the topic itself else here I present it again:

Sensitive topic, this one. Nevertheless, lets hear the arguments on the truth value of the 9/11 story.

The official story is that 19 terrorists (5+5+5+4) hijacked 4 planes (with small knives/ box cutters) and crashed them into symbolic buildings as an act of war on the free world. Subsequently,
a: the two Twin Towers: WTC 1 and 2, fell down to the ground
b: there were damages to a particular wing of the Pentagon
c. there was a huge hole in the ground near Pennsylvania where allegedly the 4th plane fell
d. WTC 7 collapsed whereas WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not

Apparently one of the main clues that led the FBI to the terrorists was the passport of one of them which somehow was not badly damaged and fell to the Earth when the plane went into the building.

From a scientific perspective and a general logical perspective, is the story given by the US Govt, true?

I am no great fan of the US Government (although me wife is American) and am neither inclined to believe that jihadis will not do something like that. I have seen the Government version as shown in documentaries on 911 on Nat Geo, Discovery, etc and I have also seen the version presented by the "Independent" Media. Either the Govt is hiding something or the Independent Media are cooking up something. What according to you, is the truth value of the Government's version? I am concerned more about the Government's version because it directly influenced and changed the way we live.

[jaywhat]

I cannot see what the point of this thread is - and I am bemused by the word 'truth'.

[Paolo]

Sensitive topic, this one. Nevertheless, lets hear the arguments on the truth value of the 9/11 story.

The official story is that 19 terrorists (5+5+5+4) hijacked 4 planes (with small knives/ box cutters) and crashed them into symbolic buildings as an act of war on the free world. Subsequently,
a: the two Twin Towers: WTC 1 and 2, fell down to the ground
b: there were damages to a particular wing of the Pentagon
c. there was a huge hole in the ground near Pennsylvania where allegedly the 4th plane fell
d. WTC 7 collapsed whereas WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not

Apparently one of the main clues that led the FBI to the terrorists was the passport of one of them which somehow was not badly damaged and fell to the Earth when the plane went into the building.

From a scientific perspective and a general logical perspective, is the story given by the US Govt, true?

I am no great fan of the US Government (although me wife is American) and am neither inclined to believe that jihadis will not do something like that. I have seen the Government version as shown in documentaries on 911 on Nat Geo, Discovery, etc and I have also seen the version presented by the "Independent" Media. Either the Govt is hiding something or the Independent Media are cooking up something. What according to you, is the truth value of the Government's version? I am concerned more about the Government's version because it directly influenced and changed the way we live.

The difficulty with conspiracy theories is that they make huge assumptions based on minimal evidence. I heard a wonderful one last night about how we are all "owned" by some rich Jews, based on the most tortuous line of reasoning I have heard in a long time.

Yes, governments lie to us, yes they do underhand and immoral things to further their agenda and gain political and personal power/wealth, but the assessment of whether this is happening needs to be based on something more than second-hand scraps of information linked by an a priori feeling that foul play may be afoot. The first question to ask is "what do they gain?" the next is "would it be worth the cost?" and finally, "would anyone care if it was found out?".

"Weapons of mass destruction" were a blatant US government conspiracy to find an excuse to invade Iraq - this example has a clear benefit (control of an oil producing region, a chance to justify 'defense' spending and a display of military might, removal of a perceived thorn in the side of the US, an external focus for the US public) it is worth the cost (some mercenaries, soldiers, civilians and aid workers dead) and so far the consequences of being found out have been minor (some resignations, a decline in international opinion of the US).

On the other hand 9/11 has little benefit to the US government beyond fostering fear in the US public, the costs are very high in terms of US lives lost and disruption to infrastructure and if anyone found out it would have huge consequences for all involved.

Such reasoning is not intended to demonstrate that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, but it provides a simple cost-benefit assessment that helps assess the likelihood. Remember, any conspiracy is weakened by having more links in the chain - each person has to accept their role without talking and each person has to accept the consequences of their actions. All it would take is one person involved at any stage of 9/11 to have a crisis of conscience to blow the whole conspiracy wide open.

Finally, there is simply too little information to make an assessment of the US government's suggested role in 9/11 - I don't think anyone here was an investigator for 9/11 and I'm pretty sure no-one is sufficiently motivated to undertake research on this topic - there are plenty of people who were directly affected by the tragedy who have such motivation, so perhaps you should do some critical research based on their efforts. Just keep in mind that many people were affected by 9/11 and you could potentially deeply hurt people by raising poorly considered conspiracy theories about something so devastating.

[Emma Woolgatherer]

From a scientific perspective and a general logical perspective, is the story given by the US Govt, true?

I think it's highly unlikely that the US Government's version of events, let alone the media version of the US Government's version of events, is true in all details. Events will have been misperceived, misremembered and misrecorded, some of them will have been kept secret, and yes, some people will have lied about them. There may even have been a conspiracy, or several small conspiracies, to cover up the truth, in order to hide policy weaknesses, incompetence, corruption and other unethical behaviour, failures of communication or intelligence gathering, and various other unsavoury things that you find in any government.

Either the Govt is hiding something or the Independent Media are cooking up something.

Or both, perhaps. But New York's Independent Media Center (IMC) has gone out of its way to avoid reproducing the more extreme conspiracy theories, and has in fact been accused of censorship by some conspiracy theorists. I think the aims of the independent media, to uncover the truth (or something closer to the truth) about 9/11, are reasonable. I find some of their assumptions and conclusions implausible, but by no means all.

What according to you, is the truth value of the Government's version? I am concerned more about the Government's version because it directly influenced and changed the way we live.

Yes, it did. And that's why I think it is reasonable to want to find explanations for oddities and apparent anomalies in the Government's version. Unfortunately, questioning that version is seen as throwing in one's lot with the wackiest of the conspiracy theorists. It isn't. One can be a doubter without being a nutter. As 911Truth.org puts it:

There are a good number of irrational and unsupportable 9/11 theories and theorists "out there" that have been used to great effect to discredit 9/11 truth advocates as whole (Check out Rule 4 in "The Twenty-five Rules of Disinformation" to grasp the tactic and then watch it in action in Popular Mechanics' recent 9/11 smear). We are therefore also concerned about these spurious plot lines and how they are exploited, and we criticize many on our site. Every large and growing movement picks up a few noisy dunces or provocateurs in the margins, but they do not in any way invalidate the well researched evidence at its core. We only pray that those drawn to the 9/11 issue by sensationalist claims will stay long enough to learn the less theatrical but equally damning truth.

Now, I'm not endorsing 911Truth.org. I haven't attempted to research this subject, and I don't intend to. But I certainly wouldn't dismiss the doubters out of hand.

Emma

Edited to add P.S. Looking again at 911Truth.org, it seems that they do fit the category of extreme conspiracy theorists. The first point in their mission statement reads: "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did." Ah, well ...

[Nirvanam]

I think this is a serious issue immaterial of how it affects people's sentiments. After 911, the world has become a very different place. Look at your own UK..big brother is almost ALWAYS watching you.

My stance on this subject is this: the official story provided does not add up. Now whether there was a conspiracy, or is conspiracy just a theory, I don't know and probably we may never know the whole truth. But, we obviously can examine the information that is available to us.

Here are some points to think about:
a. In human history there have been only 3 tall steel structures that have collapsed due to fire, 2 of them within around 2 hours of the fire burning. They are WTC 1, 2, and 7. Many towers around the world have caught fire...some burned close to a day but they didn't collapse.
b. The news of WTC 7's collapse was read out on BBC even before it actually collapsed! You can see the WTC 7 standing through the glass window behind the newsreader.
c. The Pentagon attack: no trace of wreckage equivalent to that of the size of the plane that is supposed to have hit the building
d. Pennsylvania: not a single body found and whatever wreckage was available was about the size of 1 truck load
e. BBC (I think) made a documentary which was on youtube about 7 of the 19 alleged hijackers turning up alive in different parts of the world.
f. If you look at the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 they seem to have come down in the path of least resistance close to the speed of gravity...just looking at the collapse it looks like a controlled demolition.
g. Larry Silverstein owner of the WTC entered into a lease agreement for 99 years just around 2-3 months before 9/11 and guess what he had... insurance cover for such terrorist attacks. (It was also estimated that it would cost in billions for WTC to be made compliant to the new environmental policies, and WTC at that point in time was making huge losses)
h. Documents of high profile cases like Enron and all were stored in the offices on WTC 7

Paolo, as per your suggestion...who would benefit from such an attack? I can fairly say that the US would benefit from the attack, and they have actually taken actions to demonstrate it too. For ex: the Patriot Act which curbs the rights of citizens...it is like military rule.
As in Iraq's WMD the idea was Oil control, Afghanistan accounts for 90% of the world's poppy based drugs trade. That is good enough reason to me. To believe that the higher ups in the US Govt or world governments have no hand or benefit in drug trade is illusion, according to me.

At least in India the coverage of 911 wasn't so much as the west so at that point in time I didn't know what was on TV and what wasn't. But in the last few years I've seen enough content made by the "Truthers" and rebuttal videos made against the Truthers, to understand what is happening.

As world citizens, I think we have a right to know what happened and bring the guilty to justice. We cannot say it happened in the US and leave it to Americans to deal with it. Many countries have sent their armies on this war...the funds came from our taxes. Also, the impact it has had on religious conflict...too much to ignore.

[thundril]

terrorism and antiterrorism involve many layers of duplicity, dirty tricks, etc., and US is no angel in this regard. So yes 'they' know more than 'they'are saying. But what exactly is the relevance to a humanist forum?

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Here are some points to think about:
a. In human history there have been only 3 tall steel structures that have collapsed due to fire, 2 of them within around 2 hours of the fire burning. They are WTC 1, 2, and 7. Many towers around the world have caught fire...some burned close to a day but they didn't collapse.

See the Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories website: First Time in History, and Twin Towers.

b. The news of WTC 7's collapse was read out on BBC even before it actually collapsed! You can see the WTC 7 standing through the glass window behind the newsreader.

I find the explanation given [---][/---] that the BBC made an error, and news that the Salomon Brothers building was about to collapse was misreported as the building had already collapsed [---][/---] more plausible (Debunking 9/11 again: World Trade Center 7).

c. The Pentagon attack: no trace of wreckage equivalent to that of the size of the plane that is supposed to have hit the building

See Aerospaceweb.org: Pentagon and Boeing 757 Engine Investigation.

d. Pennsylvania: not a single body found and whatever wreckage was available was about the size of 1 truck load

According to Wikipedia (Flight 93), "The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified." I could have believed that the US Government shot down Flight 93. In fact, Dick Cheney admitted that the US Government was prepared to shoot down Flight 93, in order to prevent a greater tragedy, but claimed that it crashed first (CBS News). That still seems more likely to me than that the US Government shot the plane down and then denied it, despite having a good ethical reason for doing so. Still, I might be open to believing that if any real evidence were presented to support it.

e. BBC (I think) made a documentary which was on youtube about 7 of the 19 alleged hijackers turning up alive in different parts of the world.

Or possibly about seven people with the same names as seven of the nineteen alleged hijackers turning up alive. See the BBC News Editors' blog: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

f. If you look at the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 they seem to have come down in the path of least resistance close to the speed of gravity...just looking at the collapse it looks like a controlled demolition.

See Debunking 9/11 again (Towers Collapse). See also "WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory", Representative Press.

g. Larry Silverstein owner of the WTC entered into a lease agreement for 99 years just around 2-3 months before 9/11 and guess what he had... insurance cover for such terrorist attacks. (It was also estimated that it would cost in billions for WTC to be made compliant to the new environmental policies, and WTC at that point in time was making huge losses) ... h. Documents of high profile cases like Enron and all were stored in the offices on WTC 7

Oh, good grief. Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

in the last few years I've seen enough content made by the "Truthers" and rebuttal videos made against the Truthers, to understand what is happening.

I'm trying very hard not to be sarcastic here, Nirvanam, because I know it's the lowest form of wit. But your confidence is breathtaking. The sad thing is that I think there genuinely are things to uncover here, secrets and lies and distortions and blunders and manipulation of the American public. What the extreme conspiracy theorists are doing is a distraction from the real truth-seeking.

As world citizens, I think we have a right to know what happened and bring the guilty to justice. We cannot say it happened in the US and leave it to Americans to deal with it. Many countries have sent their armies on this war...the funds came from our taxes. Also, the impact it has had on religious conflict...too much to ignore.

Yes, now you're getting closer to where I'm standing on this. The real conspiracy here was that some people within the US Government implied a link between the 9/11 tragedy and Iraq, so they could exploit the US public's thirst for revenge for 9/11 in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power, with a little help from spurious intelligence on WMDs. And yes, I think the guilty should be identified and punished.

Emma

[Nick]

Here are some points to think about:

OK. Let's think about them, and suggest the most likely answer.

a. In human history there have been only 3 tall steel structures that have collapsed due to fire, 2 of them within around 2 hours of the fire burning. They are WTC 1, 2, and 7. Many towers around the world have caught fire...some burned close to a day but they didn't collapse.

This is an engineering question I'm not qualified to answer, but my first thought would be that there is a difference between an ordinary fire and one which contains a plane-tank full of aviation fuel.

b. The news of WTC 7's collapse was read out on BBC even before it actually collapsed! You can see the WTC 7 standing through the glass window behind the newsreader.

Was this not more likely to be a film behind the newsreader? Can you show any evidence? Just how likely is it that the BBC were tipped off in advance? What benefit could accrue to the perpetrators from this action? How come no BBC personnel have raised any questions about it?

c. The Pentagon attack: no trace of wreckage equivalent to that of the size of the plane that is supposed to have hit the building

d. Pennsylvania: not a single body found and whatever wreckage was available was about the size of 1 truck load

Evidence?

e. BBC (I think) made a documentary which was on youtube about 7 of the 19 alleged hijackers turning up alive in different parts of the world.

Don't tell me, playing bridge with Elvis, Lord Lucan and Shergar.

f. If you look at the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 they seem to have come down in the path of least resistance close to the speed of gravity...just looking at the collapse it looks like a
controlled demolition.

If a critical failure occurred in the structure, because of gravity it would look as if it was acting under the influence of gravity. What would you expect it to do? Float away?

g. Larry Silverstein owner of the WTC entered into a lease agreement for 99 years just around 2-3 months before 9/11 and guess what he had... insurance cover for such terrorist attacks. (It was also estimated that it would cost in billions for WTC to be made compliant to the new environmental policies, and WTC at that point in time was making huge losses)

Considering that a plane had already hit the WTC and it had also been subject to a terrorist attack before, such insurance was only prudent and common sense.

h. Documents of high profile cases like Enron and all were stored in the offices on WTC 7

So what has been the fall-out from the loss of such evidence, and how would you go about convincing a bunch of guys to kill themselves to cover Enron secrets?

What conspiracy?

[getreal]

There was a very good doco, about a year ago, on (I think) the BBC which gave plausable explaiations to most of these issues.(sorry, that's as useful as a chocolate teapot!)

Isn't this a case where occam's razor would be appropriate? I am generally disinclined to believe conspiracy theories and am happy to accept the official version of events, whilst conceding that, in the interests of security and compassion, some details of the events may have been changed.

But maybe I'm just a gullable idiot?

[Alan H]

I get really fed up hearing things like: "So-and-so is a pilot and he said that there is no way that a plane would have exploded like that...", or "So-and-so is a builder/architect and he said there's no way..." or some such stuff. Everyone's an expert, aren't they? There are no real experts in what happens to planes that fly into sky scrapers, because it happens so rarely. However, there are times when we need to be listening to those who do have expertise in various areas, not to those who seem to make up whatever they want to suit their particular conspiracy theory. [/rant]

[Nirvanam]

Like I mentioned in my previous post, there are both versions of the "truth": one is from the Truthers and the other is from the Non-Truthers. Individuals while viewing these videos should be aware that these videos are edited in such a way that they will show the "most plausible explanation" to be the explanation that they are providing. And yes, both sides will use "scientists", "experts", etc to talk from their point of view. That is one of the reasons why I have not bothered to present links to videos in these posts because I assumed that most of us would have seen videos of both versions. Of course there will be some intrinsic bias towards a certain argument but more or less over a period of time (if we are being objective in our analysis and understanding, and generally neutral) we will lean to a particular side with some conviction.

The side you choose to take may not be important in itself. But given the context of what followed after 911 and the drastic almost over night changes to society it does make sense to take a non-neutral view. Not as a reason to ridicule the opposite view or the people having the opposite view as "stupids" or "traitors", but to uncover the actual truth behind the events.

The media, the governments, almost everybody who is a somebody is involved in beating it into our heads that the outcomes and actions taken after 911 are "necessary". While I personally have no problem in seeing the end of Islam since on the priority list of religions to be abolished, I would put Islam as number 1. But, having said that, 911 has only increased the hate between West and Islam which has had effects across the world.

My life, I am sure like yours, has changed. And I am definitely not comfortable with it. I guess it is much much more stringent and worse in the west than here...but the basic concept of freedom is being tampered with in the name of "safety". I mean what is happening is that in order to protect the way we live, we are changing the core fundamentals of the way we want to live. If the argument is that this is a temporary inconvenience, it is another illusion. Things are impacting my day to day life. People who travel frequently have had to compromise so much on what can be carried and what cannot...I don't mean weapons here. This is just one example. Are the changes due to "security threat" worth it? If they are not, is the security threat really true? If not, then what is the point in increasing your security personnel in your country? Remember it is only such organizations that operate on a "no-challenging-the-boss'-order" basis. Almost all other organizations you have the option of arguing with the boss.

I do not want to live in a police state. I feel I am far far luckier than the people in some Western countries today. In many ways Big Brother watching you is just a masked-Chinese/Stalinisque government.

[getreal]

My life, I am sure like yours, has changed. And I am definitely not comfortable with it. I guess it is much much more stringent and worse in the west than here...but the basic concept of freedom is being tampered with in the name of "safety". I mean what is happening is that in order to protect the way we live, we are changing the core fundamentals of the way we want to live. If the argument is that this is a temporary inconvenience, it is another illusion. Things are impacting my day to day life..

Personally, do not feel that the aftermath of 9/11 has impacted on my day to day life.
(perhaps I am not giving it enough thought)

People who travel frequently have had to compromise so much on what can be carried and what cannot...I don't mean weapons here. This is just one example. Are the changes due to "security threat" worth it? If they are not, is the security threat really true? If not, then what is the point in increasing your security personnel in your country? Remember it is only such organizations that operate on a "no-challenging-the-boss'-order" basis. Almost all other organizations you have the option of arguing with the boss..

I will accept that the increased security at most airports means more queueing and more searches.
The restictions in cabin baggage were fairly short lived and tended to vary depending on which airport you were travelling from/through and what type of ticket you bought-club and first class having more flexability.

I do not want to live in a police state. I feel I am far far luckier than the people in some Western countries today. In many ways Big Brother watching you is just a masked-Chinese/Stalinisque government.

I don't feel that I do live in a police state, although I completely accept that there is more covert surveillence than before. For the moment, I can live with that.

[Lifelinking]

Bogging oneself down in conspiracy theories such as those espoused by the hilarious 911truth.org diverts attention away from the more banal truths about humans.

Our political and economic structures are mostly driven by greed and venality. These and the allied Security and intelligence structures are bureaucratic nightmares populated by people who are self serving, apathetic, incompetent and stupid as often as often as they are loyal, hard working, capable and clever. Conspire to carry out then cover up 911? In the one good line from that bloody awful film, 'they couldae agree on the colour of shite'.

Most of us are too lazy, too stupid or too absorbed by our own self interests to challenge things, as long as we have telly and know where our next Gin and Tonic is coming from.

Ye really don't need a conspiracy theory, but the unpalatable truths about ourselves that stare us in the face, are rather more depressing.

[getreal]

Completely agree, lifelinking. Conspiracy theories are usually too complex and convoluted to be convincing.

Slightly off topic, but where did the quote come from?

[Lifelinking]

The truly bloody awful Braveheart

[Nirvanam]

Bogging oneself down in conspiracy theories such as those espoused by the hilarious 911truth.org diverts attention away from the more banal truths about humans.

Our political and economic structures are mostly driven by greed and venality. These and the allied Security and intelligence structures are bureaucratic nightmares populated by people who are self serving, apathetic, incompetent and stupid as often as often as they are loyal, hard working, capable and clever. Conspire to carry out then cover up 911? In the one good line from that bloody awful film, 'they couldae agree on the colour of shite'.

Most of us are too lazy, too stupid or too absorbed by our own self interests to challenge things, as long as we have telly and know where our next Gin and Tonic is coming from.

Ye really don't need a conspiracy theory, but the unpalatable truths about ourselves that stare us in the face, are rather more depressing.

What you said is indisputable, Life! But you know, I have this inner feeling and believe that human being is essentially "good" by nature unlike Freud's theory...probably Freud was influenced by the "original sin" story. What I mean by "good" here is the instinct to help one another.

[getreal]

The truly bloody awful Braveheart

[Alan H]

The truly bloody awful Braveheart

Never seen it!