September 11th, 2001: Inside Job?

[3 Pounds of Weeden]

Pearl Harbor was provoked by the American Gov.

 

[echelon1k1]

to take the next step where?

if you truly looked at the fact of what happened that day then you'l see that what happened was pretty much the official story

4 planes were hijacked

of that 3 planes hit thier targets WTC2, WTC1, the pentagon

1 plane was crashed in a feild

thousands of people died that day


for this to have been a false flag attack would have taken an organisation well above and beyond anything your government has ever had to offer

11 years after the fact there still hasnt been a single "player" who's come forward

this is a level of secrecy that has never been accomplished before


the resolution to this is to ignore crackpots like yourself who not only show no respect for the dead that day but also promote a dangerous ideal towards a government who couldnt have pulled this off

There's too many unanswered questions. I read the official report when it came out and it doesn't add up. I don't subscribe to coincedences nor do I think you should to know there's something wrong with the official story not to mention it's use as justification for a plethora of military action/directives over the years.

You do understand there are no whistleblower protections for people in positions that require a security clearance? This also comes with a NDA that expires when you die. It also waives consitutional rights if breached.

In regards to showing respect for the dead - the US government spent more money investigating Clinton getting his dick sucked then it did investigating the 9/11 attacks... Just a bit of perspective...

 

[OGEvilgenius]

zero dark thirty was a decent movie, really slow story however, and you have to be into the whole cia intelligence gathering aspect to enjoy 90% of it, but the las 1/2 hr or so is good.

ill admit, i kept waiting for the headshot as he was looking out the balcony... it didnt come...


so is it accurate ? meh, i have no idea... i dont know any of those people.

According to McCain it's completely inaccurate. No torture was used to glean any intelligence on OBL, according to him at least.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

to take the next step where?

if you truly looked at the fact of what happened that day then you'l see that what happened was pretty much the official story

4 planes were hijacked

of that 3 planes hit thier targets WTC2, WTC1, the pentagon

1 plane was crashed in a feild

thousands of people died that day


for this to have been a false flag attack would have taken an organisation well above and beyond anything your government has ever had to offer

11 years after the fact there still hasnt been a single "player" who's come forward

this is a level of secrecy that has never been accomplished before


the resolution to this is to ignore crackpots like yourself who not only show no respect for the dead that day but also promote a dangerous ideal towards a government who couldnt have pulled this off

Tens of thousands were involved with the Manhattan project. It remained a secret until the bomb dropped. Once again, most of those people probably had no idea what they were working on. Yet they pulled it off in secrecy.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

i've watched that film and it certainly isnt anywhere near 1% credible

i've done my own research away from vacuous films like that

Ignore the documentaries. Read Antony Sutton (who I don't think ever wrote much about 9/11 as he died not long after).

http://archive.org/stream/WallStreetAndTheRiseOfHitler/suttonhitler#page/n1/mode/2up

There's a good place to start. It's a fascinating read. Old ass book. Some of his works are high level university texts written a while ago that are quite challenging to read. This one isn't so bad though. Very well sourced.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

There's too many unanswered questions. I read the official report when it came out and it doesn't add up. I don't subscribe to coincedences nor do I think you should to know there's something wrong with the official story not to mention it's use as justification for a plethora of military action/directives over the years.

You do understand there are no whistleblower protections for people in positions that require a security clearance? This also comes with a NDA that expires when you die. It also waives consitutional rights if breached.

In regards to showing respect for the dead - the US government spent more money investigating Clinton getting his dick sucked then it did investigating the 9/11 attacks... Just a bit of perspective...

Most people suffer extreme cognitive dissonance with this issue. Very extreme. The conclusions are world shattering. So people fight back with insults and a bunch of other emotional clap trap. Mostly ignore these discussions for that reason.

 

[echelon1k1]

Most people suffer extreme cognitive dissonance with this issue. Very extreme. The conclusions are world shattering. So people fight back with insults and a bunch of other emotional clap trap. Mostly ignore these discussions for that reason.

That's why the 9/11 commission report is the ideal starting point. It'll challenge belief systems...

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Yeah, as far as 9/11 goes, I think you have to start there. But I'm not sure that 9/11 is the best place to change belief systems. I think it's easier to do with older history that people have less emotionally invested in (and even then many still have a lot invested).

 

[CSI Stickyicky]

Most people suffer extreme cognitive dissonance with this issue. Very extreme. The conclusions are world shattering. So people fight back with insults and a bunch of other emotional clap trap. Mostly ignore these discussions for that reason.

Agreed. It's such a tough pill to swallow that people wont allow themselves to see the evidence.

 

[CSI Stickyicky]

This pretty much sums up the people who fail to do their research.

 

[Heisenberg]

The only thing 911 conspiracies seem to agree on is that the official story is bunk. The reported story gets no end of criticism and anomaly hunting, while the pet alternative theory gets unlimited assumptions and speculation treated as evidence. Meanwhile the various conspiracy differ wildly on details, execution and motivation. It was really missiles holographically disguised as planes that hit the buildings. The planes were actually flown by robots. Our government actually trained the pilots. The reptilian aliens that run the country planned it all out. Each of those alternate suggestions would have required a completely different kind of conspiracy, with radically divergent details of who was involved and how it was accomplished, yet conspiracy theorists are far more receptive to any alternative suggestion, as long as it's not the official story. The ideology is that it was an inside job, any suggestion that it wasn't is met with disdain and condescension, or matched with the 'counter-evidence is evidence' dance.

Look at the posts here and you see anomaly hunting, coincidence rejection, and the definition of evidence broadened to the point of assumptions.

Did our government take advantage of the situation and use it to control us? Of course, no one is disputing that. It doesn't take fantastic conjecture to point this out, but this does not prove it was an inside job. Did our government get warnings? Apparently, but that just proves their incompetence and laziness, which is consistent with all aspects of government that we can see. If there is something that convinces you of a conspiracy then that's fine, but unless it is demonstrable, don't expect it to mean anything to anyone but yourself.

[video=youtube;_c6HsiixFS8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8[/video]

 

[Doer]

1. steel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel
2. you can see the towe collapse under free fall speed with explosions coming out on the way down
3. the owner of the WTC took out a 99 billion dollar insurance plan months before the attack, when it's only worh around 91 billion
4. HUNDREDS of eyewitness accounts claim explosions being heard before the first plane hit
5. Men put on the hijackers list are still alive to this day, alive and well.
6. Tower 7 had fires on 2 floors, then collapsed...
7. Hundreds of millions of dollars went missing from the basement floors
8. Exercises were being conducted that day that simulate the same attack and help was not anywhere in site.
9. Find me one plane that has crashed and disappeared , even the black box.
10. Over 80 videotapes surrounding the pentagon were taken and never released
11. people were making cell phone calls with almost 100% accuracy when it's impossible virtually in flight
12. even if the planes could bring down the towers, only the beams that support the floors would fall (pancake theory) but the foundation beams should still be in tact ( look at burning buildings throughout history)
13. Bush has slipped on about the commission report multiple times.
14. Passengers were seen getting off of the same plane in Cleveland, Ohio that was reported destroyed.
15. I have a life and can't sit here and name everything.

I'm sorry I just don't believe a group of ppl who haven't had that different of a life than myself or experiences in life that justify them as more knowledgeable than myself.

There is no evidence unless you count the raving of bloggers. And the g-warrior made a good job of settling your hash, point by point. So I will just address the most specious.

1- burning steel is hot enough to burn, so will melt steel.
2 - no explosions are observed. There is shattering concrete coming off the columns.
3 - irrelevant. Buildings require insurance and insurance expires
4 - FALSE
5 - need proof, names, etc
6 - Yes, T-7, was completely fucked up also and had multi-floor fires.
7 - FALSE
8 - FALSE
9 - stupid, all planes are accounted for
10 - no proof but I imagine most of the vids are meaningless, the others duplicate info.
11 - you can call using a cell phone in the air, today. You are not allowed, mostly for Interstate Commerce reasons.
12 - no other building in history like this has been destroyed like this
13 - slipped up? Bush could barely even talk straight. Need proof.
14 - BIG LIE
15 - a life? if you believe this shit?

Wow, I guess they were all specious, after all.

 

[echelon1k1]

There is no evidence unless you count the raving of bloggers. And the g-warrior made a good job of settling your hash, point by point. So I will just address the most specious.

1- burning steel is hot enough to burn, so will melt steel.
2 - no explosions are observed. There is shattering concrete coming off the columns.
3 - irrelevant. Buildings require insurance and insurance expires
4 - FALSE
5 - need proof, names, etc
6 - Yes, T-7, was completely fucked up also and had multi-floor fires.
7 - FALSE
8 - FALSE
9 - stupid, all planes are accounted for
10 - no proof but I imagine most of the vids are meaningless, the others duplicate info.
11 - you can call using a cell phone in the air, today. You are not allowed, mostly for Interstate Commerce reasons.
12 - no other building in history like this has been destroyed like this
13 - slipped up? Bush could barely even talk straight. Need proof.
14 - BIG LIE
15 - a life? if you believe this shit?

Wow, I guess they were all specious, after all.

I will address all your misconceptions shortly

 

[3 Pounds of Weeden]

There is no evidence unless you count the raving of bloggers. And the g-warrior made a good job of settling your hash, point by point. So I will just address the most specious.

1- burning steel is hot enough to burn, so will melt steel.
2 - no explosions are observed. There is shattering concrete coming off the columns.
3 - irrelevant. Buildings require insurance and insurance expires
4 - FALSE
5 - need proof, names, etc
6 - Yes, T-7, was completely fucked up also and had multi-floor fires.
7 - FALSE
8 - FALSE
9 - stupid, all planes are accounted for
10 - no proof but I imagine most of the vids are meaningless, the others duplicate info.
11 - you can call using a cell phone in the air, today. You are not allowed, mostly for Interstate Commerce reasons.
12 - no other building in history like this has been destroyed like this
13 - slipped up? Bush could barely even talk straight. Need proof.
14 - BIG LIE
15 - a life? if you believe this shit?

Wow, I guess they were all specious, after all.

lol. that's all you get.

 

[3 Pounds of Weeden]

BUT, just to entertain you. Here's one. And please tell me that BBC is lying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

 

[ExtremeMetal43]

Mother should I trust the Government?

 

[3 Pounds of Weeden]

JET A fuel (standard in the US). The open air burning temp is less than 350 C. I think you would have to consider the WTC open air burning. Max temp is achieved only with an optimum mixture of air and fuel producing no smoke. Smoke is a sign of oxygen deprivation with results in lower temperatures. The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it's specification. It is not likely that an open air burn for less than 50 minutes could have caused enough deformation to result in collapse.

 

[fdd2blk]

BUT, just to entertain you. Here's one. And please tell me that BBC is lying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

you apparently missed the link at the end of your article. lol

(Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors' blog)

"In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time."

 

[echelon1k1]

BUT, just to entertain you. Here's one. And please tell me that BBC is lying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

Anyone here familiar with intelligence collection/operations, would be very familiar with the term "Sheep-Dipping".

A tried and true method in the black arts... The bloke mentioned in the article is a perfect example.

 

[guy incognito]

BUT, just to entertain you. Here's one. And please tell me that BBC is lying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

And right at the bottom of the article:

(Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors' blog)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI. The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

So there you have it. You are either a terrible troll or a great retard.