9-11/anomalies

From Issuepedia
< 9-11
Revision as of 19:13, 20 January 2007 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (→‎Reference: 9-11 review)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overview

A number of irregularities have been pointed out regarding the events of the 9/11 attacks, mainly along the lines of objections to the official story as given by the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, although many of these are reasonable, a number of very unlikely scenarios have also been suggested and widely circulated, causing many people to overlook the more reasonable objections to the official story.

At this point, the basic facts are not yet clear enough to begin trying to piece together any kind of coherent picture of what, if any, common cause (e.g. conspiracies) might be behind the various irregularities; once each item has been more thoroughly investigated and can reasonably be judged as either "reasonable" or "dismissable", we can start trying to piece together a larger picture.

The List

Reasonable Objections

  • collapse-related anomalies (see also: wikipedia:Collapse of the World Trade Center):
    • The free-fall, controlled-demolition nature of the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7
    • The "squibs" observed in videos of those collapses
    • The fact that WTC7 collapsed at all despite the lack of any significant impacts from aircraft or falling debris, as well as the fact that it too collapsed abruptly and in a way very reminiscent of controlled demolition

Dismissable Theories

  • The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not an airplane
  • There is evidence that the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down, rather than the passengers having seized control (note that this would indicate an arguably proper response to the situation, i.e. something along the lines of the military scrambling jets to intercept, the aircraft not responding to hails, and the military deciding – given circumstances in DC and NYC – to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner over sparsely inhabited territory rather than risk its use as yet a third missile... but if so, why hide the true story?) 2006-08-03 addendum: the Vanity Fair article sheds considerable light on what probably happened, without directly addressing the issue of why the physical evidence suggests a shoot-down. (Possibly that resemblance is because of the difference between this crash and all prior crashes: whoever was in charge was trying to crash, and hence may have aimed the plane more or less straight down.)

Further Investigation Needed

  • "Third NYC Jet" theories [1]: if true, is probably "circumstantial" at best, but still a loose end worth tying down
  • The alleged pilots of the aircraft in each case were abysmal at flying, based on the testimony of their flying instructors (rebuttal: the twin towers made an easy target; no significant skill required. I've seen rebuttals of this rebuttal elsewhere; must find sources.)
  • Why did the man in the video of Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attacks look utterly unlike him (except superficially)? (Or was the video on Loose Change misdirection? Need to find actual videos.)

Circumstantial Evidence

There is already an alarming amount of circumstantial evidence seemingly connecting the leaders of the United States with the events of 9/11, but this may yet turn out to be a coincidence; people who operate in powerful circles often turn out to have unusual connections with each other.

Nonetheless, in case it turns out to be significant later on, the following circumstantial evidence has been brought up:

Links

Reference

Opinion

Loose Change

Although the Loose Change documentary film raises some valid points, it also has its screws loose in many other ways and should not be taken as representing a summary of reasonable objections to the official story of 9/11.

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=9-11/anomalies&oldid=5080"