Was 9/11 an inside job?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2014, 02:52 AM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(21-02-2014 10:13 PM)donotwant Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 09:22 PM)Alexandro Wrote:  Evidence, yeah... still waiting, meanwhile the truthers are still making money.

Well at least they're not hurting and killing ppl.

Define "hurting".
If you are a firefighter who lost his brothers in the towers and someone accuses you and them to be part of a cover up, it hurts.
If a member of your family was on one of the 4 airplanes and someone says that he now has a new identity and lives on a island sipping cocktails, you get hurt and mad.

The real gospel: Jesus went rogue and preached love instead of genocide. God got angry and went old testament style on Jesus's ass, setting him up to be tortured and killed. The End.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2014, 02:55 AM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(22-02-2014 02:52 AM)Alexandro Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 10:13 PM)donotwant Wrote:  Well at least they're not hurting and killing ppl.

Define "hurting".
If you are a firefighter who lost his brothers in the towers and someone accuses you and them to be part of a cover up, it hurts.
If a member of your family was on one of the 4 airplanes and someone says that he now has a new identity and lives on a island sipping cocktails, you get hurt and mad.

Well you manage to find negativity in everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2014, 04:23 AM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(22-02-2014 02:55 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Well you manage to find negativity in everything.

You manage to be an aggro little prick Drinking Beverage It all balances out.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2014, 04:50 AM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(22-02-2014 04:23 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(22-02-2014 02:55 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Well you manage to find negativity in everything.

You manage to be an aggro little prick Drinking Beverage It all balances out.

Hahaha. Relax bitch ;D
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(21-02-2014 10:13 PM)donotwant Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 09:22 PM)Alexandro Wrote:  Evidence, yeah... still waiting, meanwhile the truthers are still making money.

Well at least they're not hurting and killing ppl.

Neither do

pornstars
hairdressers
barbers
bakers
cleaning ladies
shopkeepers
rail conducters
and many more........


so excuse me, was that supposed to me some sort of point or argument?

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(23-02-2014 02:46 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 10:13 PM)donotwant Wrote:  Well at least they're not hurting and killing ppl.

Neither do

pornstars
hairdressers
barbers
bakers
cleaning ladies
shopkeepers
rail conducters
and many more........


so excuse me, was that supposed to me some sort of point or argument?
I donotwant to respond to thy sillies posts Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
To be honest, I've seen a number of the 9/11 doccies and I believe it was an inside job. Governments bombing their own buildings just to get a motive to enter a war isn't new. Hitler did it. Wasn't Pearl Harbour a similar thing? A "surprise" attack. I heard that the U.S was looking for a reason to join the war. So they allegedly knew Pearl Harbour was gonna go down. They defended it poorly so they had reason to join the fight.

War is extremely profitable. Apparently ol' Rockefeller (spelling?) coined it big time with his mates back in his day. But these are all just conspiracies. I'm all for scepticism and all but irrational scepticism is tantamount to blind faith.

Back to 9/11: Apparently there was a very large insurance undertaking that was done shortly before the events of that day. The cover was for terrorist attacks. If I recall there was an issue with the wording of the contract. The insurance company wanted to pay out a sum of a billion and some change for the buildings. But the client successfully argued that based on the wording of the contract, the act of terrorism could be viewed as two seperate acts of terrorism, one on each building. The insurance company had to pay nearly double because of a case of unclear writing. The timing of this was very suspicious.

The way the buildings went down was typical of a controlled demolition. There were eye witnesses such as fire fighters that attest to this fact. Sky scrapers like the twin towers are heavily reinforced and are designed to withstand more than just one plane flying into them. Those buildings were floored by one plane each.

Even the steel reinforcing rods were cut at a 45 degree angle, typical of what gets done for controlled demolitions. This is so the building can slide apart.

There was also the coincidence of having the people who would be responsible for aerial threats conveniently practicing drills. This prevented them from responding on time because the pilots of the fighter jets confused live commands for drill commands.

I can't remember much more. It was a really long time ago when I watched anything like that. All in all I wouldn't be surprised if it really was an in job. To paraphrase a North Korean commentator: "America is the only nation in the world insane enough to launch a nuclear attack on other human beings".

Debunkers ready, GO!

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  To be honest, I've seen a number of the 9/11 doccies and I believe it was an inside job. Governments bombing their own buildings just to get a motive to enter a war isn't new. Hitler did it. Wasn't Pearl Harbour a similar thing? A "surprise" attack. I heard that the U.S was looking for a reason to join the war. So they allegedly knew Pearl Harbour was gonna go down. They defended it poorly so they had reason to join the fight.

War is extremely profitable. Apparently ol' Rockefeller (spelling?) coined it big time with his mates back in his day. But these are all just conspiracies. I'm all for scepticism and all but irrational scepticism is tantamount to blind faith.

Back to 9/11: Apparently there was a very large insurance undertaking that was done shortly before the events of that day. The cover was for terrorist attacks. If I recall there was an issue with the wording of the contract. The insurance company wanted to pay out a sum of a billion and some change for the buildings. But the client successfully argued that based on the wording of the contract, the act of terrorism could be viewed as two seperate acts of terrorism, one on each building. The insurance company had to pay nearly double because of a case of unclear writing. The timing of this was very suspicious.

The way the buildings went down was typical of a controlled demolition. There were eye witnesses such as fire fighters that attest to this fact. Sky scrapers like the twin towers are heavily reinforced and are designed to withstand more than just one plane flying into them. Those buildings were floored by one plane each.

Even the steel reinforcing rods were cut at a 45 degree angle, typical of what gets done for controlled demolitions. This is so the building can slide apart.

There was also the coincidence of having the people who would be responsible for aerial threats conveniently practicing drills. This prevented them from responding on time because the pilots of the fighter jets confused live commands for drill commands.

I can't remember much more. It was a really long time ago when I watched anything like that. All in all I wouldn't be surprised if it really was an in job. To paraphrase a North Korean commentator: "America is the only nation in the world insane enough to launch a nuclear attack on other human beings".

Debunkers ready, GO!

Watch the video I linked earlier in this thread. It debunks all of this and more.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Debunkers ready, GO!

I'm not trying to slag off on you with the following. But seriously. Watching "Zeitgeist" does not make you an expert.

It's just that the physics (keyword) of what actually happened during and after the plane impact are so well understood. There's no question. None.

That leaves only the most ludicrous supposition. Since we can't deny that an actual plane hit an actual building and caused an actual catastrophe, we're left pretending that the actual people who actually claimed responsibility didn't actually do it, that the United States government actively killed thousands of its own people, and that this was orchestrated by a massively far-reaching conspiracy but yet is fully traceable by any disaffected jackoff pixel-hunter with a youtube channel.

Sounds legit.

Dodgy

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  To be honest, I've seen a number of the 9/11 doccies and I believe it was an inside job.

Right, but "I heard it from a guy on the interwebs" isn't a very good source.

Have you read the real, publicly-available reports and analyses? Y'know - the "official" story?

If you have, and if you then go on to disbelieve the "official" story merely because it is the "official" story (woo scare quotes) then you're rejecting information a priori for invalid reasons and in no way approaching things skeptically.

That is in fact the domain of a special kind of idiot pseudoskeptic:
"If skepticism is not believing things, then by not believing anything I am the most skeptical, so I win! Wake up, sheeple!"

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Governments bombing their own buildings just to get a motive to enter a war isn't new. Hitler did it.

A), no, even the Nazis didn't do that. They did actually dump some dead bodies in stolen Polish uniforms near the border and claim to have "defeated" them during their incursion, providing their nominal casus belli in 1939, but if it's the Reichstag fire you're thinking of then first of all, nobody actually knows, and second of all, it's not like there weren't organised and committed groups of fanatical hardline Communists who were in a place to be pretty desperate given that the impending election was looking to be won by the Nazis who were running on a very explicit "fuck the communists" platform.

B), that's just a damn Godwin anyway. "America R NAZIS TROLOLOL FALSE FLAG SUPER THERMITE" bullshit. Does anyone ever actually attempt to make a genuine bald-faced claim that modern day American administrations are the same as Hitler?

Like, beyond making the facetious argument that "once upon a time a group of people did a bad thing, therefore a different group of people might conceivably have done a different bad thing"?

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Wasn't Pearl Harbour a similar thing? A "surprise" attack. I heard that the U.S was looking for a reason to join the war. So they allegedly knew Pearl Harbour was gonna go down. They defended it poorly so they had reason to join the fight.

Yeah, that's not true either. Like, at all. Period. Not true. Not a shred.

But seriously, American ships were providing armed escorts to UK-bound convoys and had in fact already exchanged fire with German vessels; that would have been plenty of "manufactured" incident (but also I'm pretty sure isolationism is not a particularly defensible position to take when it comes to WWII, so there's that too).

Notwithstanding that it utterly ignores the Japanese strategic position and mindset at the time - and the simultaneous planning for attacks right across south-east Asia including the Philippines, American territory; a premise of "Pearl Harbour was lightly/undefended to make it an easy target" can only arise from an utter lack of understanding of either the Japanese or American situations in 1941.

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  War is extremely profitable. Apparently ol' Rockefeller (spelling?) coined it big time with his mates back in his day. But these are all just conspiracies. I'm all for scepticism and all but irrational scepticism is tantamount to blind faith.

That must be why WWI crashed the economy of the entire planet, then...

Of course some people can make some money selling weapons. What's more profitable by several orders of magnitude is being able to freely trade literally everything else on the planet because you're not at war. A lot of American big capital eventually - and very much eventually - ended up much more economically committed to the Entente than the Central Powers, but that's in no way relevant...

Another thing that's profitable is to not have governments waste trillions of dollars in bloody and fruitless occupation of Afghanistan, the asshole of Asia.

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Back to 9/11: Apparently there was a very large insurance undertaking that was done shortly before the events of that day.

As someone once said, "any story or fact that begins with the word 'apparently' probably isn't true".

But also: how is that relevant?

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  The cover was for terrorist attacks. If I recall there was an issue with the wording of the contract. The insurance company wanted to pay out a sum of a billion and some change for the buildings. But the client successfully argued that based on the wording of the contract, the act of terrorism could be viewed as two seperate acts of terrorism, one on each building. The insurance company had to pay nearly double because of a case of unclear writing. The timing of this was very suspicious.

How is that "suspicious timing"?

An insurance company quibbling over details? That's the smoking gun here?

Huh. What else you got?

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  The way the buildings went down was typical of a controlled demolition.

Not true.

I mean, first of all, controlled demolitions don't generally kill 3000 people - or are we making the "LOL THEY R NAZIS" argument again? But second of all, no, the damage is not consistent with a controlled demolition, and once again unless you're refusing to believe, for ideological reasons, the exhaustive investigation by thousands of experts it's probably a good idea to study said investigations first as part of learning the background.

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  There were eye witnesses such as fire fighters that attest to this fact.

Eyewitnesses are the lowest form of evidence.

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Sky scrapers like the twin towers are heavily reinforced and are designed to withstand more than just one plane flying into them. Those buildings were floored by one plane each.

Even the steel reinforcing rods were cut at a 45 degree angle, typical of what gets done for controlled demolitions. This is so the building can slide apart.

Because they were built against impact stresses and that wasn't what caused the collapses.

Seriously. Stress damages were compounded by weakening from the massive fires; that was sufficient to ruin a lot of peoples' day. The buildings fell in a "controlled" way because that's what's supposed to happen even in a worst-case scenario. Engineers aren't stupid.

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  There was also the coincidence of having the people who would be responsible for aerial threats conveniently practicing drills. This prevented them from responding on time because the pilots of the fighter jets confused live commands for drill commands.

Counter-hypothesis A: would it not make sense to schedule your terrorism for a day when response would be sub-optimal?

But also: what would they have done? Nobody knew what was happening. Without hindsight, how can you possibly say that shooting down unresponsive civilian airliners was the right course of action?

(23-02-2014 03:57 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  I can't remember much more. It was a really long time ago when I watched anything like that. All in all I wouldn't be surprised if it really was an in job. To paraphrase a North Korean commentator: "America is the only nation in the world insane enough to launch a nuclear attack on other human beings".

Yeah, if your idea of a valid commentator is a North Korea spokesperson, you're going to have a bad time. Or as one might say - "I'm sorry, who was using an endemic secret police network to slaughter dissenters during mass famine?"

Funnily enough we just had a bit of a discussion about the atomic bombings of Japan, and despite occasionally being accused of endorsing genocide I'd like to think I was able to explain what people at the time thought and why.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
23-02-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: Was 9/11 an inside job?
(23-02-2014 03:31 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I donotwant to respond to thy sillies posts Laughat

And I donotcare what you do.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: