Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

If you are a dumb and crazy conspirator, you still might have just enough of a spark of lucid mind that you realize that you can never be certain that things will go like you plan.

What if one or more passenger survives and testifies against you?

What if the pilot or copilot balk at committing suicide by flying into a building at 500 MPH?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cheez! You don't let an airplane hit a building. You have to make an airplane hit a building.

If you are a dumb and crazy conspirator and you have a nefarious reason to wreak havoc upon the Pentagon, you might possibly find yourself in the awkward situation where your best bud, Osama, is not interested in borrowing some airplanes and their crew and passengers, and crashing them. So, if your bud Osama is not going to do the nasty, you have to do it yourself, big guy.

You are thinking in terms of being a little punk conspirator. Think in terms of being a big guy conspirator. If Osama won't do it, then you choreograph the crashes and invent evidence of alien terrorists, presence of crew, and presence of passengers.

If you are a big guy conspirator and want to rouse nation resentment against Osama et al, possibly in addition to other complicated issues, then you want to make it look like O did it.

Occam Razor is a good idea in many science issues. But when a detective is trying to figure out a big crime, Occam Razor is not very reliable. Human motives can easily be so devious and irrational, especially in the minds of crooks, that the simplest possibility is most often the wrong one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are too many loose ends.

The official story has holes like a Swiss Cheese.

The conspiracy theory has holes like a Swiss Cheese.

If you don't like what is on the telly, look away, or, turn it off.

Don't try to turn my telly off till I am tired of my telly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey! Don't single out scott3x for all the credit!

JamesR Righteous Administrator surely knows that Uno Hoo also wanted to have a civil and respectful place to contemplate the truth of 9/11. Uno Hoo will match his ability to put minimal effort into an enterprise against all comers.

 

Wrong again, Leo.

Uno Hoo especially asked for a very few conditions (rules) for the Debate and the Thread. One condition was that they be civil and respectful. One insult is too many. And ONE has already happened way back down the road.

 

Being the other debater, perhaps I have a valid opinion also. I was interested in having a civil and respectful thread in which to discuss especially the Pentagon 9/11, but also the other 9/11 events. In open posts between scott3x and myself, it was my understanding that the Formal Debate was, indeed, a formality. That may be some kind of a pun, albeit a serious one. It was my beforehand expectation that the Thread would encompass the Pentagon and also any other relevant 9/11 matter.

I had developed a respect for scott3x integrity, or else i would not have so easily volunteered my participation. I have no diminished respect, and so am completely satisfied presently that scott3x active influence upon the Thread will lend it possibility to explore 9/11 and hopefully, if possible, realize the real truth behind those events.

 

OK.

Syzygys; You are stupid.

Short debate was like limited number of warm up pitches in baseball game.

Understand?

If you and other kibitzers want to talk about 9/11 facts and theories, nobody is holding you back. Most posters have kibitzed by bitching about procedures and rules. Nothing is stopping any of you from talking about WTC, Pentagon, or Pennsylvania.

 

Uno Hoo is too irascible to be persuaded by anyone.

Why don't you try to persuade me about anything? Or why don't you try to coerce me, bad boy?

Better question for you than yours for me: Why don't you ask some pertinent question regarding 9/11, instead of just wasting all your energy trying to argue about what the meaning of the word is is?

 

The structural design of the twin towers was so good, in basic principle, that it is incredible that an aircraft strike alone could have brought one down. Especially in view of the fact the famous F4 Phantom movie showed how the airplane would have poofed into Aluminum confetti rather than blowing away all those columns and spandrels. And, the Pentagon crash showed how the airplane would have only made a hole for the fuselage, rather than blowing away all those other building parts.

The F4 Phantom movie showed how the airplane would poof into Aluminum confetti rather than do much damage to the obstacle.

The Pentagon crash showed how the airplane would make a small hole for the fuselage but the wings and engines would not knock down much of anything.

The WTC crash(es) showed how the airplane(s) would blow away massive steel columns and spandrels to leave huge gaping holes.

The Pentagon crash showed how a crash would make a fire that was knocked down in ten minutes and which did not melt 58 tons of Aluminum or melt hundreds of gallons of steel.

The WTC crash showed how a crash could make a fire that melted 58 tons of Aluminum and also melted enough steel to make hundreds of gallons of molten yellow steel.

Something is wrong here. The answer is to argue about Thread procedure and what the meaning of the word is is.

 

are you feeling alright there uno hoo?

 

Like Jerry Lee Lewis once said, ( because of 9/11 puzzles ), I'm a little mixed up, but I'm feelin fine.

 

obviously the mods disagree with your assertion i've been uncivil and disrespectful because my posts are still here and i haven't received any PMs from them.

i can't convince you of anything, all i can do is present the facts as i know them to be.

 

I think there is a good chance that Uno is Scott. He was supposed to be on the other side and now he is arguing Scott's points.

1. Testifies against whom? Me, the terrorist dead guy? Who cares?

2. This is a chance they had to take. Also there were 4-5 guys, so 1 balking doesn't necessery mean the attack doesn't go as planned.

 

Why, because I haven't put you on Ignore? That can come very fast.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually, I don't understand. Or you don't understand the purpose of Formal Debate forum. The major part of the debate should be in the Debate thread. End of story.

 

You are an idiot son. Your whole conspracy is based on that NOBODY wanted to hit anything in the US, thus was the need for insider action. Unfortunatelly, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, so our conversation is over.

You are neither educating nor entertaining, so off you go to my Ignore...

 

Well, the WTC collapses thread has been closed in pseudoscience. I believe that a response to the closing remarks of the moderator who closed it (Stryder) should be allowed. Here's to hoping it is allowed to stay up...


Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and a well known figure in the 9/11 truth movement, having worked on a peer reviewed paper with such notables as physicist Steven Jones and whistle blower Kevin Ryan, stated:

Stryder opened his response with a fairly well known quote:

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that thermate doesn't stick out a mile; the only way you can know if it's there is if you scan for it, I believe with an electron microscope. Only one person bothered to do this as far as I know: Steven Jones.


Stryder continued:

Most people are fully aware that the WTC collapses were destroyed. However, it takes a fair amount of knowledge to realize that the only way they could have come down the way they did was by controlled demolition.

 

Szygys, not that I mind your take on 9/11 here, but this thread specifically stated in the opening post:

Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities. ​

I know there are many more insults, but I'm just trying to see if we can avoid these few. I have reported neither Uno Hoo or you, perhaps in part because neither of you were referring to my fine self, but also because I am -hoping- that it was simply an honest mistake.

Apparently he doesn't. I'll work on him

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

True enough...

 

According to who? Certainly not me. I like the more formal aspect of the formal debates forum only in one sense: that you can limit the amount of -insults- in it. The debate thread is a bit too formal for my tastes and I personally wanted any civil person to be able to discuss the issues, responding to a post with as many posts as they saw fit. However, many didn't like this idea, so in the ending, I wrote one post and Uno Hoo wrote one response. Then, as far as I was concerned, the real discussion could take place, unhindered by so many restrictions. The only restriction I wanted to keep was to censure certain insults.

Now, however, I see that first Uno Hoo and now you have used proscribed insults. Perhaps neither of you were aware of the proscribed words mentioned in the opening post of this thread, but I hope that you will both review them now.

 

I know that Uno Hoo was the first to use one of the proscribed words, but now you have done so as well. From the opening post:

Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities. ​

I never saw Uno Hoo claim any such thing. Just because some foreigners wanted to, however, doesn't mean they were actually capable of doing it; certainly not without insider help.

 

It is kind of funny, that you are addressing ME, when I was insulted first. Not to mention I NEVER namecall, I simply state facts. Thus if I state that a person is mentally not up to pair, you can take poison on it.

By the way, have you answered my flyover question???