I have no reason to believe that any other then the hijackers carried out the attacks or that some airplanes were unmanned. Telephone conversation have been recorded where passengers or stewards in the planes related the circumstances to air traffic controllers or family members, before they perished. I wouldn't even begin to tarnish their memories by suggesting no people were aboard. I also believe the hijackers planned the attack which was the brainchild of the al Qaeda leadership. No argument so far.
I do wonder about some things. I recall that within a day after the 9/11 attacks all the names and faces of the hijackers were showed on television. That's very quick in my opinion, seeing that in other documentaries it was mentioned several times that many institutions (like the FAA, military bases and government leadership) were in complete chaos.
I also have questions regarding WTC 7, which had the appearance of a controlled demolition. It's true that the building was damaged by the disintegrating towers and subsequently also put on fire. The north side showed little to no damage and I have seen pictures of the south side of building 7 which did show some damage, but was that enough to take the whole building down? Why didn't sections collapse? To me this is one of the strange events of 9/11 and a lot of folks also see it that way. Could tower 7 also simply collapse the way it did by the damage it suffered? Sure.
Lets get to the core of how I view the 9/11 attacks. Was 9/11 an inside job? No, there's no proof of that.
Do I have suspicions at times? Yes, I do and that is based on multitude of factors. Yet I fully realize that suspicions can not be presented as fact, and that's why I don't do that.
What arouses my suspicion? I already mentioned the unusual circumstances surrounding building 7 but it could very well be that the building went down without any outside 'help'. My main focus in this matter lies on the information that was available before 9/11 because the thing is; intelligence services were in fact aware (to a degree) of an impending attack with airplanes. For me, this is the kicker.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.
The story is continued here. The thing is; information was available in the intelligence community and it becomes a matter of what the leadership does with this kind of information. Intelligence failure? I don't think so. The leadership did one of two things. They either ignored the warnings or they let the operation/attack continue for what ever purpose. Intelligence didn't fail, the leadership failed and the ultimate question is; did they do that on purpose?
If you are in a position of power, in the central hub where all the information passes through and a few people are in control of that, it's very easy to influence a desired outcome. Such people are basically moving pieces around in a hidden game of chess and no one is in a position to challenge them. Whatever way you look at this the political leadership at the time was at least partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Again, I can't prove 9/11 was an inside job. Yet seeing how the White House got so many warnings I have my suspicions at times. This is my take on 9/11.