Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Nice picture. I'm actually a libra myself, though of the male variety

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Anyway, I've finally answered your question, now you can stop huffing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
So you mean you CAN just claim that the distribution of steel and concrete in a 1360 foot skyscraper is irrelevant while at the same time claiming it collapsed from the top down.

Should we assume she is a Libra?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

look ma! That thar lady done drawn on her boobies! Makes me wanna take up art.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

was 911 an inside job?
the facts:
1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.

 

Thanks Fraggle! You rock!

 

The main problem is that various people have various opinions on what a trifle is. I, for instance, don't think it's a trifle when people insult each other.

What if the guy -doesn't- say 'call me stupid' and yet he still does? That's happened as well. If you make the line too vague, it can discourage people from reporting; this can lead to toxic threads and then the relatively civil posters that made the thread worthwhile may decide to go elsewhere or the thread can be closed down due to its extreme toxicity. In large part, I came to Formal Debates because I wanted to get away from the insults, etc. of other forums here. If Formal Debates isn't for that, why can't a new forum be made, perhaps called 'civil discussion', where a moderator or 3 can ensure that certain insults aren't used? I think one might find that it could gather quite a crowd.

Ah ok. I figured if Syzygys didn't get in trouble for posting it, it was all good. Personally, I think this is a serious problem with our society; we get upset with a picture of a part of the human body but it's 'no big deal' to be calling each other stupid, f word derivatives, and the like.

 

You beg to be called stupid. Your conspiracy theories are offensive and insulting to the intellect. Calling you stupid is mild in comparison.

 

I havent read rest of the thread so I dont know who stands where. To me its so obvious as daylight - It was an inside job just like they shot down JFK. If it wasn't, govt wouldn't have had any troubles releasing the details of the investigation to public. Its easy to establish if we follow the money in either cases. Both incidents were closely followed by a war. Who profits out of a war?

 

I can't believe it, we are having an actual ON TOPIC discussion!! Hallellujahh!!! Man, you are really the king of conspiracy theorists. The problem is that more notions you introduce, the less believable the story is. Let's see:

OK, whatever happened to the terrorists? Did they exist? Did they board the planes?

Whatever happened to the original pilots? Do you mean new planes (how do they transfer so many passengers) or the original planes that have an extra remote control on them?

Again, Occam's razor. You don't think it is possible with relative little traning to fly a plane and hit a large object? It is much easier to train willing people than going the extra miles with this whole switchero..

Holy smokey, the Pentagon is one of the world's largest building!!! You need a nuke to flatten it!!!

This is an unsupported assumption. If the replacement plane is the same type, as the original, after hitting a building and blowing up there isn't much leftover what THEY couldn't cover up.

So whatever happened to the original plane?

Because a couple of cables are going to stop a freaking plane going 3-400 miles per hour????

God bless you!!!

But I did notice that you didn't explain a plane flying AWAY from the Pentagon. And that was in the original verison of the conspiracy. Now you are changing the story.

Your version at every turn just rises more and more questions. The simplest explanation is that yes, a Microsoft flight simulator with a few dozen hours of real training can be sufficient and if you have willing people to do so the attacks were possible...

But feel free to answer the questions in this post...

 

I must have missed that history class, but which war followed the death of JFK???

Also, a government (or anyone)can cover up not necessery wrong doings but INCOMPETENCE to avoid taking responsibility....

 

Lyndon B. Johnson expands the [Vietnam] war, 1963–1969

 

... and like 911, there was the right catalyst for a war-Gulf of Tonkin Incident

These kind of things cannot be covered up by just anyone. Its not a small robbery. If there is a cover up, then it can only be planned and organized at govt. level for an incident of this magnitude.

 

The operative word is EXPANDS. That means it didn't start after JFK's death. I didn't miss the English class.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I have to correct myself, I didn't realize that the Tonkin incident was with LBJ. I do agree with theobserver that the USA had been using these incidents to enter wars, including Pearl Harbor.

 

See my post above. I was just being sarcastic because the involvement with Vietnam was already on with JFK, although one could argue that it really escalated under LBJ, so we can count as the real start from there. Anyway...

Yes, so? Again, that doesn't necesserily mean the whole government knew (not to mention actively helped) about the attacks. If you are part of the government (or a company) when there is a big fuckup, you most likely help to cover up because you don't want your organization to look bad and you can say, "there is nothing we can do about it now".

Also, just because some high ranking people knew about the attack (I agree that some did) that doesn't mean every high places official knew about it. Nevertheless they could be pressured NOT to help any investigation into matters that would show incompetence or negligence.

The funny part is that you guys don't bring up the obvious evidence, the put buying in the German bank. That wasn't just a lucky guess and well documented...

 

OK, here is an analogy for conspiracy theorists, just to understand why even decent people cover up:

Let's say I work for a big company with a good salary, where because of costcuttings, there is a fire where quite a few people dies. I might knew about the inadequate fire extinguishing system (cover my ass) but that doesn't mean I caused the fire. The real cause of fire is ambiguous or let's say a guy caused it accidentally.

Now the building has burnt down, there is serious damage to the company's image and a few deaths, who wants to take the rap?? Of course nobody. Let's say I could testify about the inadequacy of the firesystem, but I would lose my job, and it wouldn't bring back the dead. I might even catch some bad shit. So what do I do?? I keep my mouth shut...

Same with the government. A few government officials (specially the one who bought the puts) sure knew about that something was going to happen but just how detailed there knowledge was, or how highly ranked they were, or how much evidence they had is not known.

Without evidence it is really hard to rock the boat and usually means professional suicide. Not very many people do that.

Now unless I am very bored I am done with this thread because you guys don't make much sense and you are not very entertaining either...

P.S.: Oh yeah, and you don't want to learn...

 

consequences of gulf of tonkin

isn't this the same kind of thing that son of a bush was granted after the 911 thingy?

True. The whole govt need not be aware of it. But the ones who had the power to cover it up obviously knew. Because they sure did managed to cover it up and destroy evidences and use misdirection to an extend which gave them enough reasons to go for war in Afghan and Iraq. I wouldn't say that the fire department knew. Because they lost a lot of their own people.

Now the organization looking bad possibility is the question which need to be addressed only if it was an outside job or an accident. If it was a deliberate attack on US soil by the US govt or its contractors, then its Govt. level priority to cover it up. Now if there was really a flight which had hit the pentagon as they claim it, why can't they release the video footage's from all the security cameras?

 

Like somebody once said, " Be careful what you ask for. You might get it."

 

In an ongoing attempt to try to make some sense out of the 9/11 PUZZLE, I am starting to try to figure out, on topic, more or less, how jetliners could have punched such prodigious holes in the outer structure of the WTC buildings. In my first-blush thinking, when the robust structural design of the buildings is taken into account, it is rather like you would take an empty plastic liter bottle previously having contained soda pop and smash it as hard as you can into the grill of a 1953 Buick, and be amazed to see the grill demolished.

That is what happened at WTC on 9/11.

Exact structural engineering information is proving to be not easy to find, but I am engaged in trying to ferret out enough data to calculate the mass of a column/spandrel module at the crash locations and then to figure out how much momentum and kinetic energy transfer could have been accomplished by impingement of essentially an air-inflated Aluminum blimp. One of the keys will be how much resistance to shear the bolts connecting column to column, and, spandrel to spandrel, were designed to have. I copied this information after recent internet searches, but have misplaced the copies somewhere on my archive drives.

At this time, I am greatly amazed that the relatively flimsy fuselage, and, especially, very flimsy, wings , of a jetliner could have so easily knocked away such heavy column/spandrel modules.

Such was not said to be true at the Pentagon, or in the famous F4 Phantom rocket sled test movie. And such is not true every time i smash an empty plastic bottle against the grill of my 1953 Buick.

 

.
The only weight I have seen for a perimeter wall module was for the heaviest type at 22 tons. That can be found in an old engineering magazine from 1970. That is one of the things I complain about in the NCSTAR1 report. They should have told us the number and weights of each of the 12 grades of wall panels long ago.

Plus since those spandrels held the edges of floor slabs it should have been extremely difficult to push them in. So there is reason to wonder about those flashes seen just before the noses of the planes hit the towers.

psik