I was watching the events of 911 unfold live on TV here in Australia, I saw the second tower get hit as it happened.
The first thing I said to my wife when we initially heard/saw the news report (after the first but before the second) was "They finally did it!"
There is good reason why I said this back then....
The Islamic extremist have been threatening this for many years before it happened - from what I understand the yanks had little to no idea that they
were so disliked by the international community prior to 911 - because of USA's supply of weapons to the IDF whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye
to how the IDF behaved WRT the Palestinians.
USA media ignored all the terrorist threats from the Islamic extremists for over twenty years and palmed it all off as "that would never happen to
us". After all, the yanks were always stating the USA as being the "greatest country in the world", how could a bunch of terrorists living in caves
ever stage an attack on US soil.
Sorry if I'm sounding negative(trolling) but I'm trying to paint a picture of the situation from foreign eyes.
After the fact (911) we all saw the Michael Moore video and the numerous people giving lectures on how it was all a big set up.
I was very dubious and still to this day question as to whether it actually was a set up because....
1)There is basically only circumstantial evidence for 911 being caused by the US government......Surely there would be at least one person who was
involved/had access to documents that had a conscience. There are so many avenues of getting that sort of information out anonymously that I find it
hard to believe that no-one had the balls to get the info out. Those who do stand up and say this is a big conspiracy theory are either not credible
or not in a position to have been privy to the information and continue to tout circumstantial evidence.
2) I have studied the three towers collapsing pretty thoroughly and I personally consider them to be plausible as being caused by the two planes. If I
was some "Joe Blow-in" straight off the street this would mean diddle, however, I am a university educated mechanical engineer and have a lot of
experience modelling such scenarios. If you look at WTC 1 & 2 they are top down collapses (the exact opposite of how a building demolisher would bring
down a building and exactly how I would expect the building to fail from the weakening of a fire. Given the damage caused from the 1st two collapses
to wtc7 and the fact that the whole area is a swamp and is piss-poor(technical term
) as a building foundation, I also find it plausible that wtc7
went down without the use of explosives.
3) After the collapses, regular emergency workers were the ones sifting through the rubble. After a building is demolished with explosives there is
always evidence of the blasting equipment used. For example scrap blasting caps, bits of scrap det-cord, det-cord joiners, etc. Surely the emergency
workers sifting through the rubble would have found such evidence and it would have been plastered all over the MSM.
4) If the government really wanted to bring down the three WTC buildings ( 1, 2 & 7) why not just save a hell of a lot of hassle and use missiles.
They could just as easily blame terrorists and it would require only a few key individuals to play it out. Using missiles would be a sure destruction
of the buildings and cost very little compared to setting up already expensive planes with complex automation systems.
I doubt that the conspiracy theorists will like my opinion, but in all honesty....to play this out as a government conspiracy would be a monumental
task. However training a bunch of deluded Islamic extremists - who have a chip on their shoulder about the USA - to learn enough of the basics of
flight, doesn't seem that "far fetched".
edit on 25/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)