Cyprus-Forum.com

[Cap]

Have been reading some interesting posts on another thread from some members, and although its an old topic, it peaked my interest.

My question is, if it was an inside job, how did the CIA manage to collaborate with/manipulate a group of Saudi's to execute an operation like that?
I mean were they that stupid? Did they know their actions were going to result in a full scale invasion, would they have done it anyway?

[Cap]

[Cap]

More interesting facts...

[Bananiot]

Yawn ...

[Kikapu]

It is always easy to ask questions as to "WHY" things happened in a conspiracy theories. Lets have the answers also to the "WHY's" if conspiracy theories to be taken seriously.

I do believe there was knowledge by the Bush administration that hijackings would take place. What was not known, what the hijackers real intentions were. I personally do not give much credibility to all the "WHY's" the way things happened in the way they did on 9/11. The bottom line is, the terrorists got very lucky on that day and had gotten a much better results than they could have possible wished for. There's no need to look beyond that.

[B25]

Kiks, I don't agree with you, sorry. The whole thing went too easy for a random hi-jack and crashing.

What I find most strange is how the building conveniently fell straight down not causing it to tilt and destroy neighbouring buildings. The whole thing went like clockwork for an attack of this magnitude.

With all the homeland security the US has, they have a department made up of every combination of the english alphabet, and still these nobodys manged to do it??

Come on, just who do they think they are fooling??? Birkturk maybe, not me or the millions of others who understand just how dirty the CIA play.

They would kill their own to have a reason to do what they want.

Definately an inside job.

[Daniella]

Kiks, I don't agree with you, sorry. The whole thing went too easy for a random hi-jack and crashing.

What I find most strange is how the building conveniently fell straight down not causing it to tilt and destroy neighbouring buildings. The whole thing went like clockwork for an attack of this magnitude.

With all the homeland security the US has, they have a department made up of every combination of the english alphabet, and still these nobodys manged to do it??

Come on, just who do they think they are fooling??? Birkturk maybe, not me or the millions of others who understand just how dirty the CIA play.

They would kill their own to have a reason to do what they want.

Definately an inside job.

The buildings..i've seen hundreds of videos. It seems "only" controlled demolitions.

[Kikapu]

Kiks, I don't agree with you, sorry. The whole thing went too easy for a random hi-jack and crashing.

What I find most strange is how the building conveniently fell straight down not causing it to tilt and destroy neighbouring buildings. The whole thing went like clockwork for an attack of this magnitude.

With all the homeland security the US has, they have a department made up of every combination of the english alphabet, and still these nobodys manged to do it??

Come on, just who do they think they are fooling??? Birkturk maybe, not me or the millions of others who understand just how dirty the CIA play.

They would kill their own to have a reason to do what they want.

Definately an inside job.

What I find most strange is how the building conveniently fell straight down not causing it to tilt and destroy neighbouring buildings. The whole thing went like clockwork for an attack of this magnitude.

There is a very simple explanation as to why the buildings came straight down and not sideways. It's called GRAVITY, which only works one way, at 90° straight down.

If it were to have been a controlled demolition on the buildings on 9/11, which I have witnessed couple of times in Las Vegas where old hotels were brought down to build bigger ones in it's place, the explosives are placed at the base of the buildings to weaken the structure, and once that is done, then gravity takes over with the help from the weight of the building itself, which comes straight down. Did the twin towers collapse from bottom up or top to bottom. You will find that they in fact collapsed top to bottom. To support the conspiracy theory for this to happen, each floor of the twin towers would have needed to have explosives placed in them and each floor level to explode in split second from each other to destroy the whole building. That's not what happened. The tops of the twin towers basically collapse into itself floor by floor withing the outer steel cage of the towers. Once the burnt areas of the towers got weakened by the buckling steel frames caused by the heat, the top of the buildings came crashing to earth floor by floor in rapid speed, very close to the speed of gravity.

As to what happened to WTC 7 building is a mystery, which can be perhaps explained by the shaking of the ground caused by the falling twin towers, which may have caused damage to the foundations to weaken it. Perhaps it was brought down intentionally after the fact if it's foundations were weakened by the falling of the twin towers. If the twin towers weekend the WTC 7 building foundations and it was no longer a safe building, it doesn't really mater how it came down, controlled explosives or not. As far as I know, no one was killed in WTC 7 building.

As I've stated, the Bush administration knew there were going to be hijackings. What they did not know was, the intentions of the hijackers. Hijacking planes doesn't require too much brain power. Once the planes were3 hijacked, crashing them into building didn't take much planning either. Everything happened too fast and was over within a short time. I personally believe that Flight 93 that crashes in Pennsylvania, was more than likely shot down by US jets to prevent it from reaching it's target, but you will never get the US to admit that. It sounds better that those who died on board died as heroes in saving lives on the ground with the "Lets Roll" call. If the US did shoot Flight 93 down, they did the right thing.

Just the hijacking of the planes and crashing them into the ground would have given the US enough excuse to invade Iraq by blaming Saddam Hussein for the loss of couple of hundred passengers on those planes. There is no way the NeoCons would have let 9/11 happen with the way it happened. The cost has been way too much for all the oil in Iraq to make the justification if the NeoCons were behind 9/11. The US economy did not suffer as the results of the Housing Bubble in 2008, but it began back in 2001 right after 9/11.

[supporttheunderdog]

there are a number of conspiracy theories, many of which are mutually exclusive and most of which tend to ignore inconvenient facts.

What is well researched (but the conspiracy theories tend to ignore this evidence), is that while the fire was not hot enought to melt steel, it burnt at about 1000 C for 15-20 minutes, which was hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel by 90%, which would be enough to initiate collapse. I understand this collapse was contributed to by the unique design of the structure, where, to a large extent structural strength, depended on the outer structure, the inner structure and the floors retaining their integrity. The floors probably became detached from the vertical columns, and went vertically down: There was no particular reason for the bulding to tip as it collapsed: with such a pancake collapse gravity would tend to make everything fall vertically.

One of the buildings came close to collapse following an earlier bombing.

[Daniella]

what about WT7 collapse? Any aeroplane hit that building...
what about flight 77 crashed in pennsylvania?