9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

andrew

niallo27 wrote: »

The poster asked the question about the 9/11 attacks and I answered, if you believe the uk government was in on it too that's your opinion

What he meant is, that the attacks would lead to a protracted war was definitely not a sure thing prior to the attacks. And I can't really think of very many/any people who both have benefited from the wars, and where in the position to make 9/11 happen

niallo27

andrew wrote: »

What he meant is, that the attacks would lead to a protracted war was definitely not a sure thing prior to the attacks. And I can't really think of very many/any people who both have benefited from the wars, and where in the position to make 9/11 happen

I knew what he meant alright, war was a strong possiblty though, makes it a lot easier to push an agenda through, war is very profitable and greed is a very powerful motive. I don't think it was an inside job, I'm just giving my opinion on if it was.

Jesus Wept

4leto wrote: »

Believe me the insurance companies would not pay a red cent if they thought they could prove it was government a demolition. Obviously they couldn't

Believe me, if the insurance company had stated that they thought the official story was untrue, it would be the end of their business.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Folks are a group of fanatical extremists flying planes into buildings and murdering thousands not bad enough as it is? Why do people insist on trying to make it seem even worse? Is the offical line not horrific enough?

I don't base my beliefs on what is the most palatable, otherwise I'd believe in some pretty wacky sh1t. We're adults, not children.

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Then there's the witness plants/actors

Probably my fav is this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY

Apart from being a pretty weird, delighted to be in the spotlight creep, what is so special about it?

brummytom wrote: »

I don't believe the majority of conspiracies about 9/11; but I do have doubts about 'Flight 93'.

Personally, I think there's a good chance it was shot down before it went for the White House, and the story about the 'American heroes' who tried to regain control from the hijackers is a convenient cover.

This is 99.99% and always has been. Absolute stomach churning Americana spin, Rumsfeld and Bush are terribad liers.

Inside job.. I hate admitting it but yea, there's a list of things that happened that day that make it pretty obvious.
Even the timing of it.. What terrorist decides to put in place such a complex operation before the towers were even full that day?

The_Kew_Tour

KeithAFC wrote: »

What is the problem people seem to have with 9/11 and why some still want to find a conspiracy in it? Everything I have seen on it seems pretty logical enough to me from a scientific view point on the collapse of the towers to the Pentagon and the evidence of debris on the lawn and engine parts.

I struggle to see why people would think it is an inside job when the evidence says otherwise. I know some might question certain things and the US government but people should use the term inside job carefully.

The problem some people have is they just can't believe how it happened in that they can't believe such chaos could happen to a country like America and the video footage and pictures to this day is incredible and even i sometimes say to myself "how on earth did that happen" but I honestly just think America got caught with its pants down.

Some people can't believe that 19 hijackers could cause so much damage and yet it did happen and America didn't have a clue about it.

Ya I cant argue with that really Keith.

But why would the US Government bother aying they found passport when it it is certin they did not..It opens a can of worms even if it is only small..

buck65

Anyone who thinks this was an inside jib is giving way too much credit to the Americans. As later wars have proven.

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

I know we might be going around in circles a bit, but my point is i have seen building being left to burn out as they were unstoppable, huge building higher than building 7 and none of these have fallen. I dont think fire is hot enough to weaken steel, this has to be factored in when building any large structure.

But again, you cannot compare buildings so easily.

When were these other buildings built? Fire regulations for fireproofing etc are constantly being revised

Where were they built? Different countries have different regulations

What fireproofing was used? Even if two methods of fireproofing are designed to last the same length of time, concrete could be knocked off the steel in an impact easier than intumescent paint, and fire resistant plasterboard could be knocked off even easier

How much damage did occur to those buildings? Steel isn't designed to carry a certain load, it is designed to carry that load and extra loading as a safety factor. If only weaker steel members were damaged, the building would have been able to carry the extra load

How were they built? Were they entirely steel frame or was reinforced concrete used? Were loads spread evenly throughout or brought down in certain areas?

Plus then you have the fact that not only was Building 7 hit with debris from the falling towers (and several other buildings in that area had to be torn down due to the damage they sustained, though no major fires were reported in those buildings unlike WTC7), but you also have the fact that the two towers collapsed causing huge vibrational energy throughout buildings in that area.

Fireproofing in buildings is usually designed to give enough time for safe evacuation of the buildings and for an attempt to extinguish the fire. I would propose to you that if these larger buildings stayed standing even though the fires burned for longer, it was because it was a larger building, and would therefore have required more fireproofing. But again, you cannot compare buildings so easily, as there are a huge number of variables involved.

Surely the question that should be asked is, if the US government conspired to destroy WTC7 as well, why not just fly another plane into it?

Laois_Man

Several things don't make sense about the whole thing - but there as many on the CT side as there is on the US Government side!

For example, if the objective of staging these attacks was oil and/or to invade Iraq, why stage it to look like a group in Afghanistan were responsible and why not stage it to lok like Saddam hussien was behind it or at least partly behind it? All I have ever seen about America's supposed interest in Afghanistan is some rubbish about a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan that would go thru Afghanistan - I've never seen any credible explanation as to why the US were supposed to care enough about this pipeline to do something as devestating as 9/11 to help bring it about.

--Kaiser--

For people who think it was an inside job (I probably shouldn't bother, arguing with an idiot and all that..) and assuming you think that it collapsed due to controlled demolition*, ignoring the obvious argument that the controlled demolition of a building takes dozens of people months to accomplish.....

....given that both towers started collapsing from the point of impact of the planes, how does one rig explosives in a building that don't detonate when a jet plane full of combustible fuel flies into it?





*(there is another theory that there were no planes and the towers were destroyed by energy weapons)

rounding tattenham Corner

4leto wrote: »

A terror attack and its absolutely and totally moronic to think otherwise.

all governments wish their people all thought like you

kfallon

It was a terrorist attack and I can tell you exactly why!

How many people would have been in on it if it were an inside job, hundreds maybe running into thousands. Now since when could you trust a few hundred (again maybe thousands) Americans to keep their mouth shut about something like this for 10 years! Somebody would have blabbed by now, it's a certainty!

It would be impossible and I'm sorry if any Americans take offence to this!

SEPT 23 1989

It looked like a controlled explosion in tower 2

--Kaiser--

kfallon wrote: »

It was a terrorist attack and I can tell you exactly why!

How many people would have been in on it if it were an inside job, hundreds maybe running into thousands. Now since when could you trust a few hundred (again maybe thousands) Americans to keep their mouth shut about something like this for 10 years! Somebody would have blabbed by now, it's a certainty!

It would be impossible and I'm sorry if any Americans take offence to this!

It would be impossible for so many people to keep this a secret, no matter what country they came from or creed to subscribe to

CTers must get a sense of superiority from believing their little theories, that most people are being fooled but not them, no sir....

--Kaiser--

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It looked like a controlled explosion in tower 2

Ever seen a controlled demolition? Have a look at one on youtube. Notice how they collapse? Bottom up, always. Both WTC towers collapsed from the point of impact of the planes

Smyth

Let's stop calling it a terror attack for one minute.

That's a blanket word used to describe an invisible force.

Let's say who "did it". Al Qaeda. Right? Those are the terrorists in question here. These guys hiding in mountains who gave the US their opportunity to invade and liberate their oi...I mean people.

Disregarding the towers completely, have a look into the pilots comments on the whole thing. That's the part I find impossible to believe. The US in all its power and glory were invaded and attacked by a couple of guys from Afghanistan who decided to hijack a plane and pull off a manoeuvre that takes a lifetime of flight experience and expertise.

Not to mention that they can track these planes and an alarm was never raised.

Sounds about right.

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/37-intredasting.jpg

4leto

The-Rigger wrote: »

Believe me, if the insurance company had stated that they thought the official story was untrue, it would be the end of their business.
.

No it wouldn't and they did challenge the claim and won their case, they only paid out the insurance on one tower, 3.5 billion out of a 7 billion claim.

And its not to late, they could still go back with all this "new evidence" and sue for the return of the insurance payment, but that "new evidence" is mainly from youtube and conspiracy theorists. It would hardly stand up in a rational court, its all laughable.

Seachmall

While there are plenty of less-than-amateur and arm-chair demolition "experts" here there is one line that undermines your position,

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." - Wiki

Your opinions on the matter are not in anyway equal to that of qualified experts with years of experience in the area. You may think you are the open-minded free-thinker refusing to buy into the naivety of the general public but you are, in fact, the man with a string around his tooth tied to a door because he believes the dentistry industry to be a cover for a satanic cult.

Nothing I say will convince you. You have bought into this belief system, fueled by ignorance of the industry and arrogance that your opinion, or the opinion of discredited or unqualified self-proclaimed "experts", is equal to that of an entire community that eats, drinks and breathes demolition. A community that define the industry and have consistently proven themselves to be fully worthy of being called experts in that field.

To continue to hold your beliefs you have misunderstood, misinterpreted or plain ignored the contradictions and criticisms the expert community have sent your way, when they have been generous enough to even consider your positions some-how response worthy. Which it's not.

tl;dr
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

rounding tattenham Corner

Seachmall wrote: »

While there are plenty of less-than-amateur and arm-chair demolition "experts" here there is one line that undermines your position,

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." - Wiki

Your opinions on the matter are not in anyway equal to that of qualified experts with years of experience in the area. You may think you are the open-minded free-thinker refusing to buy into the naivety of the general public but you are, in fact, the man with a string around his tooth tied to a door because he believes the dentistry industry to be a cover for a satanic cult.

Nothing I say will convince you. You have bought into this belief system, fueled by ignorance of the industry and arrogance that your opinion, or the opinion of discredited or unqualified self-proclaimed "experts", is equal to that of an entire community that eats, drinks and breathes demolition. A community that define the industry and have consistently proven themselves to be fully worthy of being called experts in that field.

To continue to hold your beliefs you have misunderstood, misinterpreted or plain ignored the contradictions and criticisms the expert community have sent your way, when they have been generous enough to even consider your positions some-how response worthy. Which it's not.

tl;dr
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Don't be such a fool, inside job does not mean that the US actually blew up the buildings themselves, for goodness sake they had been funding Al Qaeda for years they actually gave them the name Al Qaeda, Bin Laden was a CIA operative so you saying the CIA had no knowledge or control over what he was up to.

sensibleken

George bush co-ordinated the attack and the CIA covered it up.

Despite the fact George bush can't co-ordinate swallowing a pretzel and the CIA can't cover up a blow job

--Kaiser--

Seachmall wrote: »

While there are plenty of less-than-amateur and arm-chair demolition "experts" here there is one line that undermines your position,

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." - Wiki

Your opinions on the matter are not in anyway equal to that of qualified experts with years of experience in the area. You may think you are the open-minded free-thinker refusing to buy into the naivety of the general public but you are, in fact, the man with a string around his tooth tied to a door because he believes the dentistry industry to be a cover for a satanic cult.

Nothing I say will convince you. You have bought into this belief system, fueled by ignorance of the industry and arrogance that your opinion, or the opinion of discredited or unqualified self-proclaimed "experts", is equal to that of an entire community that eats, drinks and breathes demolition. A community that define the industry and have consistently proven themselves to be fully worthy of being called experts in that field.

To continue to hold your beliefs you have misunderstood, misinterpreted or plain ignored the contradictions and criticisms the expert community have sent your way, when they have been generous enough to even consider your positions some-how response worthy. Which it's not.

tl;dr
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

ROFL

and

/thread

Penn

Seachmall wrote: »

While there are plenty of less-than-amateur and arm-chair demolition "experts" here there is one line that undermines your position,

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." - Wiki

Your opinions on the matter are not in anyway equal to that of qualified experts with years of experience in the area. You may think you are the open-minded free-thinker refusing to buy into the naivety of the general public but you are, in fact, the man with a string around his tooth tied to a door because he believes the dentistry industry to be a cover for a satanic cult.

Nothing I say will convince you. You have bought into this belief system, fueled by ignorance of the industry and arrogance that your opinion, or the opinion of discredited or unqualified self-proclaimed "experts", is equal to that of an entire community that eats, drinks and breathes demolition. A community that define the industry and have consistently proven themselves to be fully worthy of being called experts in that field.

To continue to hold your beliefs you have misunderstood, misinterpreted or plain ignored the contradictions and criticisms the expert community have sent your way, when they have been generous enough to even consider your positions some-how response worthy. Which it's not.

tl;dr
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Bang on.

People often talk about "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth", an organisation of professionals from around the world who believe the conspiracy. About 1,500 worldwide.

But consider how many professionals like that there are. (approx figures)
Architects in America Alone: 233000 (source: http://www.numberof.net/number-of-architects-in-the-us/)
Engineers in America Alone: 278400 (source: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm)

So in just America, not even Worldwide, there are over half a million such professionals, 511400.

1,500 out of 511400 is about 0.3%. You take into account all other professionals worldwide, you're talking about 0.05% max of Architects and Engineers worldwide who think it may have been a controlled demolition.

If you went for blood tests, would you trust the 1999 doctors who told you you were fine, or would you trust the 1 doctor who told you the government planted a new deadly virus in your blood but didn't actually have real evidence for it?

Orando Broom

The quickest way to debunk any and all conspiracy theories about 9/11 is to look at one complicit group, civil servants.

Really, thousands of civil servants, coordinated and organised and motivated enough to pull off 9/11.

Here endeth then lesson.

4leto

rounding tattenham Corner wrote: »

Don't be such a fool, inside job does not mean that the US actually blew up the buildings themselves, for goodness sake they had been funding Al Qaeda for years they actually gave them the name Al Qaeda, Bin Laden was a CIA operative so you saying the CIA had no knowledge or control over what he was up to.

Well Jaysus obviously they hadn't, otherwise 9/11 would never have happened.

And its the great misconception the Americans supplied the funds but the Pakistanis supplied the contacts and they tended to favour the Pastun which makes up 15% of the Pakistani people and probably 90% of the Taliban.

So indirectly the Americans made the taliban but Pakistan made the funds available. But that was for a different war and a different time.

IvaBigWun

The-Rigger wrote: »

Apart from being a pretty weird, delighted to be in the spotlight creep, what is so special about it.

Who really talks like this after an event like this has happened? Seriously?

"mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense"

How in the name of jaysus did he know that an hour after they collapsed?

Seachmall

IvaBigWun wrote: »

"mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense"

How in the name of jaysus did he know that an hour after they collapsed?

He observed a fire.

He observed a collapse.

He concluded that they were unlikely to be coincidences.

4leto

Even if I never believed any of the conspiracy crap in the first place, after taking part in this thread and reading all the comments, I can honestly say this thread has totally debunked every 9/11 conspiracy theory going.

It was a good thread, a good debate.

iregk

Isn't there a conspiracy forum for this ****.

Penn

iregk wrote: »

Isn't there a conspiracy forum for this ****.

There's even a 9/11 subforum

RoryMac

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Who really talks like this after an event like this has happened? Seriously?

"mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense"

How in the name of jaysus did he know that an hour after they collapsed?

A freelance journalist given a big opportunity to speak live to the nation on Fox and trying to make an impression!

Penn

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Who really talks like this after an event like this has happened? Seriously?

"mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense"

How in the name of jaysus did he know that an hour after they collapsed?

Because that's pretty much the only logical explanation.

Plane crashed into the buildings.
Large fires.
Building collapsed.

He's hardly likely to suggest they fell because it was quite windy out and ignore the fact that the buildings, already structurally damaged by the impact of the plane, had fires burning on several floors