Was 9/11 an inside job?

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikidebate logo.png Resource type: this resource is a wikidebate.
Simpleicons Business sand-watch-with-content-falling-inside.svg Subject classification: this is a history resource.

The September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City forever changed the landscape of American culture and geopolitics around the globe. Is the official explanation of who conducted the attacks accurate and reliable? Is it possible that some government agents had inside information or even planned the attack itself?

Arguments for[edit]

  • Besides the twin towers, one more building in the World Trade Center complex collapsed, namely the 7 World Trade Center. This building was not hit by any plane, nor did it receive much more debree damage than any of the other buildings surrounding the twin towers. It did catch on fire and burn for some hours, but not nearly enough to make the building collapse as completely and as fast as it did. But if the fire didn't cause the collapse, then the only remaining explanation is a controlled demolition, which would implicate high-level government officials.
    • If it received damage from falling debree and was on fire for several hours, how can you argue that it did not receive enough damage to collapse? I would argue that this is clearly evidence of severe damage to the building, so there is no basis for you to say that the only explanation is controlled demolition. Also, the building did not collapse in an instant, it was slowly collapsing as the fire went on and eventually there was a catastrophic failure which caused a visible dust cloud. However this does not mean the building 'suddenly' collapsed.
      • It's true that a small part of the roof (a penthouse) fell off first, but it's just nitpicking to say that this means the building did not suddenly collapse. In fact, the building was collapsing at free fall speed for the first few seconds of its collapse,[1] and the remaining time it was still near free fall speed (this would happen in a controlled demolition anyway because of the delay caused by floors colliding with other floors). Fires simply don't knock out all of the supports of a building at once the way that is required for this collapse. It's unheard of, and you cannot find any example of a collapse similar to this one caused by fire. However, a controlled demolition does not mean that 9/11 was an inside job. This is true, but you must look at the drills being done that day to know that it was.
        • That does not respond to the point being made, which is that the building was collapsing on the inside from fire for hours. The fires did not knock out all of the supports at once. They weakened the supports around column 79, causing floors 8 to 14 to collapse in the inside of the building. This then led to column 79 failing, causing the east penthouse to collapse, damaging surrounding columns. This set off a chain reaction of columns failing from the east side to the west side. This meant that the full weight of the building was loaded onto the perimeter support, which buckled between floors 7 and 17 eight seconds after the east penthouse collapsed, causing the remaining exterior of the building to collapse as a single unit.[2] So the collapse was not instant and can be explained by fires. You then say that this is unheard of and I cannot provide an example of a similar collapse. That's absolutely correct. It was completely unheard of for a high rise to have its lower floors on fire for many hours without firefighters stopping the fire. But it happened on 9/11.
  • The September 11th attacks were a thinly-veiled excuse to invade Iraq in order to establish American dominance, get oil, and to vindicate the first Bush Presidency's defense of Kuwait in the 1990s during the first Persian Gulf War.
    • Although the United States may have used this terrorist attack as a pretense for empire-building, that doesn't mean they caused it or allowed it to happen with prior knowledge. It's possible and even plausible that once the attack occurred they simply saw an opportunity and took it. It's also reasonable that different actors in the federal government had some complex motivations including retribution for the attacks as well as expansionism.

Arguments against[edit]

  • Any possible motive for the government to do this would not need to be executed in this way.
  • The events of 9/11 can be explained far more simply as terrorist attacks than a complex conspiracy with unclear motivation. There is no evidence of explosives. There is no evidence of members of the conspiracy, even though this would require the perfect silence of a large amount of individuals at different levels of government, when the government has a difficult time keeping far less scandalous secrets hidden. Such theories strain credulity and there is simply no reason to accept them other than the desire to believe them.
    • On the contrary, the motivation became clear soon enough: justifying an invasion to the Middle East to secure access to cheap oil.
  • Soon after the event, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack.
    • Al-Qaeda are probably not above claiming responsibility for something they didn't actually do if it furthers their organisation's goals. If 9/11 were an inside job, Al-Qaeda would probably claim responsibility anyway either unprompted or at the suggestion of whatever secretive cabal really did it.
  • It would be impossible to keep a conspiracy this large secret. Someone would have leaked reliable and verifiable information at some point and every journalist in the world would be keen to break the biggest story in the 21st century.
    • The conspiracy that official story says committed the 9/11 attacks was a single Al-Qaeda cell, why should the conspiracy that really did it necessarily be much bigger to the point that discovery is inevitable?

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]