September 11th, 2001: Inside Job?

What really happened that day?

  • Muslim terrorists. Move along, nothing to see here.

    Votes: 20 29.0%
  • Inside job. Too many coincidences.

    Votes: 43 62.3%
  • Not sure. Both theories seem plausible.

    Votes: 6 8.7%

  • Total voters
    69

3 Pounds of Weeden

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



Mistaken idenitty has nothing to do with who did or didnt do it. Well it does, but you really believe our government wouldnt go threw their life history before making the accusation? And they re-edited one name not all the others.

"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."
If they can mistake him for someone, wouldn't they eventually discover evidence of the guy with the same name who "did" do it? There was confusion amongst BBc because no man named Waleed Al Shehri was never involved period.

I could tell you Bob Jones kicked my ass but i'd know who he was when I saw him.
 

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
1 out of how many accused men?
What are you even talking about? You are the one that posted a BBC article that one of the hijackers is alive and well as proof that in fact one of the hijackers is alive and well (therefore making the "official" story a lie). It was then pointed out by multiple people that the bbc was in fact wrong and even posted the correction in the article. The article was a case of mistaken identity, and the bbc said so themselves. You are retarded, and 911 was not an inside job.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
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
so because some of the suspected hijackers were not part of the AQ plot means that there was no AQ plot or that the FBI didn't have perfect information post 9/11? This is where conspiracy theories abound, in the unknown where there's lack of information. No one is claiming the 9/11 Commission Report was fully accurate or complete. In fact, I personally think there still are some unanswered questions, but that doesn't make for a conspiracy. When I look at the supposed evidence that 'proves' a false flag, or demolitions, or lack of a cartoon cutout of an airplane in the Pentagon, I never see anything that is more than speculation and stories, no real empirical evidence. It is sad to see people claim knowledge about things like what the impact site of a jet ballistically crashed into a giant, multiringed building should look like. Multiple non-government experts have no problem understanding the physics of the Pentagon, WT7 or the Twin Towers. All claims about demolition are refuted by the experts in the field. Just the amount of time to rig the buildings, which include physical removal of much of the support structure, would take a long time and would be noticed. Claims about free fall speeds are clearly seen untrue by examining the some videos. Yet instead of dropping the claims that are unsupportable, you cling to them, denying the evidence and then shifting to the new hypothesis de jour.

[video=youtube;k8VAsoVuShM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM[/video]
 

3 Pounds of Weeden

Active Member
so because some of the suspected hijackers were not part of the AQ plot means that there was no AQ plot or that the FBI didn't have perfect information post 9/11? This is where conspiracy theories abound, in the unknown where there's lack of information. No one is claiming the 9/11 Commission Report was fully accurate or complete. In fact, I personally think there still are some unanswered questions, but that doesn't make for a conspiracy. When I look at the supposed evidence that 'proves' a false flag, or demolitions, or lack of a cartoon cutout of an airplane in the Pentagon, I never see anything that is more than speculation and stories, no real empirical evidence. It is sad to see people claim knowledge about things like what the impact site of a jet ballistically crashed into a giant, multiringed building should look like. Multiple non-government experts have no problem understanding the physics of the Pentagon, WT7 or the Twin Towers. All claims about demolition are refuted by the experts in the field. Just the amount of time to rig the buildings, which include physical removal of much of the support structure, would take a long time and would be noticed. Claims about free fall speeds are clearly seen untrue by examining the some videos. Yet instead of dropping the claims that are unsupportable, you cling to them, denying the evidence and then shifting to the new hypothesis de jour.
.

[video=youtube;k8VAsoVuShM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM[/video]
LMAO first off all, i will not listen to anyone who gives a speech in a hillbilly tanktop. Sorry. wow
 

3 Pounds of Weeden

Active Member
We are all finding stuff that says different things but you guys get so mad that you have to insult people and talk shit about what they believe. If you go back, I didn't get into until dude started being disrespectful. It seems everyone who doesn't believe it has to insult because nothing but shit leaks from there mouth. And holy shit, look throughout American history, even if I WAS wrong I wouldn't be stupid for thinking so.
 

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
We are all finding stuff that says different things but you guys get so mad that you have to insult people and talk shit about what they believe. If you go back, I didn't get into until dude started being disrespectful. It seems everyone who doesn't believe it has to insult because nothing but shit leaks from there mouth. And holy shit, look throughout American history, even if I WAS wrong I wouldn't be stupid for thinking so.
No, you ARE stupid for thinking so, that is the point. You apply absolutely no critical thinking skills. For christ's sake you posted a bbc article as proof when the article itself contained the correction. Did you even read the article?
 

3 Pounds of Weeden

Active Member
You're a sponge. They revise one name and then patch things up to make THEM look better. There were so many things that slipped through the cracks with these accusations. Soak it up, it'll all be over soon.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
We are all finding stuff that says different things but you guys get so mad that you have to insult people and talk shit about what they believe. If you go back, I didn't get into until dude started being disrespectful. It seems everyone who doesn't believe it has to insult because nothing but shit leaks from there mouth. And holy shit, look throughout American history, even if I WAS wrong I wouldn't be stupid for thinking so.

i found your fail and never insulted you.

try again.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
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.
There's less oxygen than typical in an open air scenario at those heights. Large black billowing clouds of smoke indicate a rich fire (aka not hot).
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4264

The human brain evolved in such a way as to keep itself alive to the best of its ability. For the past few million years, our ancestors faced a relatively straightforward daily life. Their job was simply to stay alive. Like us, they had different personalities, different aptitudes, different attitudes. This was borne out in many ways, but the classic example that's often used is that something would rustle in the tall grass. Some of our ancestors weren't too concerned, and figured it was merely the wind; but others were more cautious, suspected a panther, and jumped for the nearest tree. Over the eons, and hundreds of thousands of generations, the nonchalant ancestors were wrong (and got eaten) just often enough that eventually, more survivors were those who tended toward caution, and even paranoia. In evolution, it pays to err on the side of caution. The brains most likely to survive were those who saw a panther in every breath of wind, an angry god in every storm cloud, a malevolent purpose in every piece of random noise. We are alive today as a race, in part, because our brains piece random events together into a pattern that adds up to a threat that may or may not be real. As a result, we are afraid of the dark even though there's rarely a monster; thunder frightens us even though lightning is scarcely a credible threat; and we perceive the menace of malevolent conspiracies in the acts of others, despite the individual unlikelihood of any one given example.

Conspiratorial thinking is not a brain malfunction. It's our brain working properly, and doing exactly what it evolved to do.

So then, why aren't we all conspiracy theorists? Why don't we all see conspiracies all day long? It's because we also have an intellect, and enough experience with living in our world that we are usually able to correctly analyze the facts and fit them into the way we have learned things really work. It is, exactly as it sounds, a competition between two forces in our head. One is the native, instinctive impulse to see everything as a threat, and the other is our rational, conscious thought that takes that input and judges it.

To determine when a person is over the line and should be treated, psychiatrists often look closely at the context. Does the conspiratorial belief integrate harmlessly with this person's life, or does it dominate? Has it caused problems: loss of job, loss of spouse, loss of security, or caused sociopathic behavior? These are the types of things that differentiate a belief system from what we call an illness. A person who thinks Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake is not ill, but a person who obsesses over it to the point of driving away their friends and family could well be. They believe their delusion is real. They will present their evidence to prove it until the cows come home. It's often impossible to get them to consider the possibility that the reality of what they perceive might be due, in any degree, to psychopathology.


World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085

No evidence of any explosives were ever found, but the conspiracy theory states that this is because the government took away all the debris before it could be independently tested. Since it's normal for debris to be removed following any such destruction, this particular piece of information is too ambiguous to be given serious weight as proof of a conspiracy.

The claim that fire has never before destroyed a steel-framed building seems to hold up well, as it's hard to find a recent example of it. The reason is that modern building fires are always fought, they have sprinkler systems, and their steel is well insulated. Turn the clock back a few decades to World War II, when there was massive worldwide incendiary bombing of major cities, there were no sprinkler systems, and fire fighters had no hope of responding, there were many hundreds of steel framed buildings that were destroyed by fire. Not by bombs; by fire. The Edo Museum in Tokyo has preserved gnarled masses of giant girders twisted into knots by fire. London's Imperial War Museum has thousands of photographs of the same, and even a large collection of contemporary art depicting warped steel girders. Dresden's City Historical Museum also shows examples of steel girders from buildings that collapsed from fire, during that city's most infamous of all large-scale incendiary attacks. These museum collections all predate any alleged September 11 conspiracy.

There are three videos of the actual collapse that are of decent quality, and all show a collapse that appears reasonably consistent with what most laypeople have seen of controlled demolitions on television. The most obvious difference is that controlled demolitions start with multiple series of minor explosions distributed throughout the building to cut various support structures in a carefully planned sequence, followed a few seconds later by the charges to blow the key structural elements in a sequence designed to initiate the collapse in the desired direction. None of the videos of Building 7's collapse show any minor explosions. They simply show the top of the building begin to gracefully sag, as if it's made of clay, and then the whole thing drops. So while the manner of collapse may look superficially similar to a controlled demolition at first glance, a more careful examination shows critically important (and non-ambiguous) differences.

The neat, tidy arrangement of the debris of Building 7 is another characteristic of controlled demolitions that is claimed by the conspiracy theorists. WTC7.net states that "The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building." In fact, Building 7's debris field was neither tidy nor well-contained within the footprint. The videos of the collapse are all from far away and show only the top portion of the building before it disappears behind the skyline. Lower down, the collapse become much more chaotic. Two nearby buildings were nearly destroyed by it. The Verizon Building suffered $1.4 billion in damage from the collapse of Building 7, but was able to be repaired. Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, however, was not so lucky, and suffered such major damage that it could not be saved. What remains of it is still being deconstructed piece by piece.

There's really nothing that's either mysterious or unexpected about the manner of Building 7's collapse. It was doomed by the damage, the diesel-fed fires, and the lack of firefighting capability. All the physical evidence, photographic evidence, and testimony of the firefighters is perfectly consistent with the government's official report. The conspiracy theory is supported by no evidence and is inconsistent with all of the events in the 7 hours preceding the collapse. The cause of Building 7's collapse is a question where very little critical analysis needs to be applied by a rational person.
 
Top