September 11, 2011

I was in 8th grade history class when my teacher ended the lesson and turned on the TV. “Whatever I teach you today will be less important than this – this will be history.” He said. He was right. I watched as the world trade center burned from what appeared to be an aircraft that had crashed into it.

At the time people still weren’t sure if it was an accident or not. Then a second plane hit tower 2 and everyone knew it was on purpose. Before that moment I can’t remember ever even thinking the word terrorist. Now it’s everywhere.

Conspiracy Theory

Ever since then I have always be skeptical about what happened that day. How did a second plane, that hit 30 minutes later, have the opportunity to hit the building? Why wasn’t it shot down? Why did a third building WTC 7 collapse? Why did no one see the plane that hit the pentagon? Is it strange that the section of the Pentagon that was hit was “under renovation” at the time and empty? How did fire from “burning office furniture” cause a steel building to collapse (the first in history)? Why do so many architects and engineers disagree with the 9/11 reports? These are just a few questions I have.

I never want to associate myself with 9/11 conspiracy theorist because a lot of those people are crackpots, but I have to admit that the whole situation seems off. People reported explosions in the basement. Traces of thermite, used in controlled demolitions to melt steel, were found in all three buildings. Key witnesses end up dead. I mean what is really going on?

Since I feel like a lot of level headed people read my blog I want to know what you think. Conspiracy theory? Is the government telling the truth? Does anything seem wrong at all? I think so.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “September 11, 2011

  1. reconciledme

    I was in the navy on 9/11 and deployed on December 1st in support of the new war on terror. To say we were ready to make someone hurt would be a huge understatement. 6 months after that deployment I was redeployed to Iraq for the first few months of the war. I was a Corpsman assigned to a Marine Corps battalion and not sitting on a ship away from it all.

    Even then I didn’t understand why we were there. I knew I had given an oath to my country and just as important (maybe more so) I was a Navy Corpsman trained to take care of my Marines. They needed me and I was going to be there with them.

    I guess it was a year ago that I could finally do a little searching and researching on 9/11. I had a good portion of my life invested in 9/11 and the events following and it was no easy thing to do. However, I am now under no delusions about what happened. I’ve read or seen most of what you mentioned in your post and have no doubt that 2 airplanes with partially trained pilots did not bring down those 3 buildings.

    I think people struggle with the acceptance of the “who” question more than the “how ” question. I opened a Pandora’s box in my mind when I finally accepted the fact that the accepted story was a lie.

    Turns out I went halfway around the world to find bad guys when they were in our own backyard.

    I think what most people have a hard time getting there mind wrapped around is not the what, but the who. A lot of people acknowledge there is something troubling about the accepted facts

    Reply
    1. Atticus Finch

      It is very interesting to hear someone who dedicated such a portion of their life to say 9/11 was more than it seemed. What happened was a criminal tragedy. Sad. Thank you for your service to the country and doing what you think was/is right.

      Reply
  2. theworldaccordingtomarc

    My wife was administering a Harvard Business School management seminar, run by Laurence Suskind entitled “The Art Of Negotiation”, on 9/11/01. There were numerous Pentagon and government high-ups at this very renowned Harvard conference. One such attendee was a specialist in skyscraper structural analysis. She actually muttered to my wife as the buildings were ablaze, “Those buldings are going to go down.” Even steel melts under sufficient temperature, and jet engine fuel burns very, very hot. You answered your other major question regarding why the 2nd and 3rd planes were not shot down — like you nobody including the entire US security infrastructure knew or believed what was behind the 1st plane crash. Even if some suspected, there was insufficient time to respond. Scrambling jets does not happen in 30 minute or even 60 minute intervals. The results of 9/11 are not due conspiracy, rather because we (as the majority of the world) are an open society, an increasingly complacent and tolerant one at that.

    Reply
    1. Atticus Finch

      Thanks Marc! I wonder why so many engineers and architects disagree? Especially the matter in which the building failed and falling at the speed of gravity. Also the melted steel at the base of the WTC cut in angles and the traces of thermite. The structual beams would have to all fail simultaneously it seems. Also what about WTC 7 that was not a direct hit? There are just a lot of unanswered questions to me.

      It would be interesting to hear what that same Skyscraper structural analysis thinks about the 9/11 reports upon further examination. You should try to find her!

      Reply
  3. Rattlesnake

    7 World Trade Center was hit by “heavy debris” from the other buildings and caught fire. The sprinkler system in the building was manual, so it didn’t automatically start and there was insufficient water pressure so firefighters couldn’t do much to put the fire out themselves.

    Even if there are some things that don’t seem right about 9/11, does that mean the most likely explanation was something other than terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into the buildings? What explanation would make more sense than that?

    Reply
  4. Rattlesnake

    As for thermite, I haven’t found anything that suggests there is actual evidence that thermite was found at the site. There were a number of things going on that could have caused explosions or explosion-like sounds.

    Here’s a website that might be of interest.

    Reply
    1. Atticus Finch Post author

      I have seen in a number of documentaries and articles where seemingly reputable engineers and architects claim to have found traces of thermite in the dust at the towers. A quick Google or youtube search will render numerous results, some of which seem fairly reputable. I agree there are things that could have caused explosion like sounds and that is not evidence in and of itself but combined with other factors it raises questions. Also, I’m not sure what to make of the building free falling without resistance.

      Like I said – I’m not saying that the it was a controlled demolition or not exactly what the Gov. says it was, but a bit sketchy if nothing else…

      I have read almost that entire website you linked to. It’s a good resource.

      Reply
      1. Rattlesnake

        I’m sure that, if there was thermite found at ground zero, there is a more reasonable explanation. I disagree that explosion like sounds raise any questions if there are likely reasonable explanations for them, but that they were ostensibly present gives people an opportunity to argue for another possibility.

        Again, I would say most evidence seems to suggest that 9/11 happened how it is reported to have happened. I can’t think of any possible reason the American government or anyone else would be hiding anything about it (not that that negates that possibility or anything…).

        Reply
  5. Sarah W.

    I have no intelligent position on 9/11, but I will say this: before recently, I would have never, never thought anyone in our government would perpetrate such an act in order to advance a particular agenda. Recently, though, I learned about “Operation Northwoods” from the early 60s where the CIA recommended to Kennedy that they commit terrorist acts here in the U.S. and blame them on Cuba so that the public would support military action against Cuba.

    Obviously, that didn’t happen, but the fact that such a proposal could even make it in front of a president for consideration says a lot about the lengths some in our government might go to in the name of peace/war.

    So, again, I don’t know if I believe all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but, sadly, I wouldn’t put it past “us.”

    Reply
    1. Atticus Finch Post author

      Wow, I had never heard of that. Very interesting. Who knows what really goes on. I have to assume what we actually find out about is only the tip of the iceberg. Iran -Contra, overthrow of regimes, etc. We only hear about some of it.

      Just today: http://cbsn.ws/Mhx1Sc

      Reply
      1. Sarah W.

        Saw that F&F announcement, too. Obama’s use of “executive privilege” just reeks of cover up. Why else would he use that power, especially one that he has, to my knowledge, yet to exert in his presidency to-date. And why for a operation that the White House had supposedly zero involvement in? Fishy.

        On a side note, a friend of mine often says that he’s never critical of conspiracy theories because they are driven by a distrust of those in power… which he says is very sensible. I’ve always considered that sound wisdom! lol

        When you get a sec, google that Operation Northwoods. Some of the actual docs were declassified and are available online (provided they are legit, of course). Interesting stuff.

        Reply
  6. philebersole

    Conspiracies sometimes happen. Powerful people sometimes plot to do awful things in secret. But I still think it is best to follow Robert A. Heinlein’s rule: Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    I think a conspiracy theory is implausible if (1) it assumes people do things that it doesn’t make sense to do, (2) it assumes people do things that are beyond their normal capabilities and (3) it assumes that large numbers of people were involved, but the truth somehow never came out.

    It doesn’t make sense that conspirators within the government would know the specifics of an al Qaeda terrorist plot to attack the Twin Towers, Pentagon and White House, and would feel that the attack would not in itself be enough, but would have to be embellished by planting explosives in the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What would be the gain from this compared to the risk of being found out?

    It doesn’t make sense to me that such a plot could be carried out undetected by people in the Bush administration who weren’t capable of faking convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

    The conspiracy theory rests on technical evidence that I’m not competent to investigate. However, there is argument about the meaning of such evidence.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842?do=print

    I was more suspicious of what lay behind the anthrax attacks than of the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks, coming so soon after the 9/11 attacks, made me feel under siege – that there was going to be a succession of attacks, all under completely different methods. But unlike with the 9/11 attacks, nobody claimed credit for the anthrax attacks, and the government didn’t seem interested in getting to the bottom of things. However, see Heinlein’s Rule above. I don’t really suspect a conspiracy, but I would be reassured to have more complete information.

    Sometimes I think there is a conspiracy to spread bogus conspiracy theories in order to divert attention from the real conspiracies 8)

    For example, there is a whole Kennedy assassination industry, but few people seem to be concerned about what is behind the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination. I find it more plausible to think of Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone than James Earl Ray acting alone (because of his foreign passport, escape plan, etc.)

    Reply
    1. Atticus Finch Post author

      Phil, as always you are a great voice of reason. Like someone mentioned earlier – it makes more sense to me that perhaps 9/11 itself was not a conspiracy, but the true conspiracy lies in what those in charge used 9/11 to do – such as invade Iraq, Afghanistan, patriot act etc.

      The Heinlein rule is a very good one to follow, I think.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s