If it's not an inside job, people on the inside certainly know what really happened. And it sure as hell didn't have anything to do with OBL, Afganistan, Box Cutters, Radical Islamic Fundamentalism, etc.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
I sometimes wonder if it's fear that drives people like you to these fucking absurd conspiracy theories. I mean, it's scary to think that a group of fundamentalist scumbags on the other side of the planet can do something so horrible. But there's nothing extraordinary about what they did. Carrying boxcutters onto an airplane? Easy. Hijacking an airplane with those boxcutters and false threats of a bomb? Easy. Flying them into buildings? Nothing that some lessons at a flight school or two couldn't take care of. It's pretty incredible that the buildings fell down, but it's certainly easier to see that happening than to imagine a scenario in which several buildings were wired for detonation with no one being the wiser. That's akin to saying the earth rotates because God spun us like a top.
Nor would such an extreme have even been necessary to facilitate the support for war. It makes no sense on any level whatsoever for the United States government to kill off over 3,000 of its citizens for the sake of starting a war, when staging a much smaller event would have accomplished the same thing. Hell, knocking the towers down at night would have given them much of the same newsreel, the same scenes of panic, and without the insane death toll. I keep hearing how this is just an American Reichstag, but do you know how many people died in that fire? None!
I think I get it, though. I think understand that we retreat to these nonsensical fantasies because it's better to assume that something so terrible is only possible when it comes from within. There's a sense of invincibility gained when one decides to believe that we are the only ones capable of hurting us. It's comforting to think that we can't be touched by something so low. But we can, and we have. 9/11 was the result of Islamic fundamentalism, as well as a bit of carelessness and inattention by our top officials. But to suggest that it was perpetrated by those officials is insulting, and stupid, and most of all absolute bullshit. And to then have the gall to say that all "intelligent, well-informed adults know" that it was an inside job is fucking mental. It's beyond the pale. It's taking the gold in the Intellectual Dishonesty Olympics.
I agree completely.
Sadly, while you might eventually talk an irrational individual out of his/her wacky belief in such an absurd conspiracy, you'll NEVER talk an irrational individual out of his/her irrationally. :shrug: It's a useless mission.
As the sign behind my desk says:
" Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever."
Right no such thing as Operation Northwoods or Mongoose.
Who said that? I simply said that there would be no need to kill three thousands Americans to achieve that goal. Operation Northwoods speaks to that point, because it proposes operations that amount to no actual casualties.
I'm not sure what Operation Mongoose has to do with this, though.
I would imagine starting riots, sinking ships, blowing up planes would inflict a few deaths, and Mongoose was similar actions to blame Castro and take control of Cuba. Now I don’t necessarily believe that the US government caused 9/11 but I do think ANY government would kill their own civilians for the betterment of themselves. Nations have done that for thousands of years.
Whatever. I've had the debates too many times already. Your verbal abuse doesn't make you "right" or correct. Indeed, it only shows how increasingly desperate the other side of this issue on this debate is getting. I am here for the young, the curious, the open minded and people who wish to know the truth. I am not here for people who have been indoctrinated by government compulsory education, state schools, establishment universities, CFR corporate controlled media, and our party controlled political system. All of which have an interest in the current "preemptive" war making policy, reduction in civil liberties, and security fascist state that grew out of 911. These all protect the interest of big business and the global financial system.
What I am interested in are facts. This is a science forum, we should be interested in facts, and the facts are on the side of truth, not the government's conspiracy theory. I don't care if you view the documentary that Carcano posted, and I don't care if you view the documentary that I posted. The point here is that the facts are posted now for the intellectually curious to find out the truth. Even if you yourself wish to be among the knowledgeable instead of slinging accusations, insults and feigning incredulousness, now is your opportunity instead of acting like a child.
Most adults, and experts who know how realpolitik work will tell you it is far more likely that Mossad and the CIA were instrumental in making sure that those planes got through strategic air command's air defenses, rather than it just being a colossal blunder. That just doesn't happen. If you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead. If you want to get educated, watch the videos, do some of your own research, and stop listening and watching corporate media. Hell, even foreign media that isn't connected to the global network knows the truth.
I don't recall anything about starting riots, but the boat sinking and plane crashing was meant to be simulated. The object was to create the appearance of Cuban terrorism, not to actually kill American citizens. But even if they did lose some lives, nobody behind that project suggested knocking down skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. You must be able to see the difference between the two.
Mongoose wasn't a false flag operation, so it doesn't apply here.
Well, whether they would or wouldn't isn't relevant to the discussion. I certainly never took a position one way or the other. My point was that even if they were to stage a false flag attack to gain momentum for war, they wouldn't have needed to do it the way 9/11 happened. As I said before, staging it at night would have done the same thing without the huge death toll. To suggest that the US government perpetrated those attacks is to imply that our government at the highest levels consists of psychopaths.
I see the difference between sinking ships and demolishing skyscrapers, the only point I am trying to make is the government would do something like this. Also there was a documented plan about using commercial airplanes to down buildings as a staged attack. The name of the plan escapes me right now so I will do some hunting to see if I can find you a link for this.
More specifically, the plan called for the following:
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
1. Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
2. Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
3. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).[15]5. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.8. Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
9. Capture militia group which storms the base.
10. Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napthalene.11. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
No, you're here for the suckers, the saps, and the credulous. Your argument relies on misinformation and majestic claims you support only with assertions that it would take an idiot to disagree, or some variation on that trope. You spout pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked for years, and shut yourself off from logic and reason by dismissing every argument as being made by "the indoctrinated." You epitomize intellectual laziness. Even your style is familiar, obviously copy-pasted from the endless "Truther" websites which in turn do nothing more than regurgitate rote from the Loose Change flicks and Truther loons cashing in on a tragedy by selling books to the suckers, the saps, and the credulous who write the websites in the first place.
It's all one big circle of stupid.
(Standing Ovation!)
Isn't this thread just going to be killed?
psik
psik
Not anymore, Stryder lifted the ban on 9/11 threads. How have ya been psikey? Long time, no see. You ever figure out how much steel and concrete were used in the towers?
Not anymore, Stryder lifted the ban on 9/11 threads. How have ya been psikey? Long time, no see. You ever figure out how much steel and concrete were used in the towers?
I have been doing OK. Merely comatised with shock by the Irony of Curiosity.
The NIST admitted in their report there was "roughly 200,000 tons of steel". 100,000 in each tower. There is still no specifications from them for the amount of concrete. Data from before 9/11 says 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That would come to more than 300,000 tons of concrete per tower.
The problem is distribution!!! Skyscrapers must be BOTTOM HEAVY. So how could the top 15% of any skyscraper fall straight down and destroy everything below? A little matter of the Conservation of Momentum and the energy required to disable the supports that had to be strong enough for the static load plus some safety factor.
So we have the Irony of Curiosity. LOL
Scientists can find Higgs Bosons and do a fantastic robotic landing of a 2000 pound rover on Mars but they can't ask obvious questions about the physics of skyscrapers in ten years. Where has an engineering school even tried to make a physical model that can completely collapse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
But we keep hearing this "Inside Job" crap. I don't care who did it or why anymore. The crime is now the physics profession not resolving this rubbish in ten years. Either the top of the north tower could destroy the rest in less than 30 seconds or it couldn't. They should have explained it in detail either way.
But how can they say that airliners could not have done it after all of these years? If they do then they must explain why they didn't tell us in 2002. And so many people who claim they understand Newtonian physics would end up with egg on their faces. This is a HUGE ego problem now.
Of course physics is incapable of giving a damn.
psik
Last edited:
Physics is not about imagining scenarios. At least not 300 year old Newtonian Physics is not.
Arabs with box cutters cannot change the Laws of Physics. Neither can the CIA or the Mossad.
Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.
Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.
But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.
The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and therefore heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds.
Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?
9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in history of science. Why should we care what they say about the Higgs Boson? They have really made an Irony of Curiosity. How do you get to Mars without Newtonian Physics?
So the psychological issue is about all of the people who cannot figure out the grade school physics because they hate the conclusion it would force them to.
psik
OK.
To maintain a constant velocity then the stories being crushed would have to support exactly the same weight that they would have when they were intact. Do you think that it is reasonable to expect a building to be just as strong after being hit by hundreds of thousands of tons of falling concrete and steel as it was while it was intact? If so, nothing about structural failure will make any sense to you.
Exactly. It should have taken 9.2 seconds if somehow the structure of the rest of the building had been magically "blown away" by secret demolition charges or something. That didn't happen, and thus the remainder of the structure provided some (but not a lot of) resistance to the collapse.
That question makes no sense.
My example was to demonstrate the impossibility of the 90 stories being destroyed at a constant velocity.
The total mass of the building is estimated at 500,000 tons so the top 14 stories of the north tower would not have been hundreds of thousands of tons.
So you don't understand what the word CONTROLLED means. It means it does what the person who designed the process decided to happen. But if it was a mass falling from above onto an intact structure then it could onlly do what the physics dictates.
Which means it should be reproducible by experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
This is part of why this crap goes on and on and on. People keep arguing vague bullsh!t and can't support anything they say.
psik
Your comment is a farce, as if there would be much measurable difference between a floor collapsing and one that was blown up on purpose. None of the floors were designed to take as much a 1 foot of free falling building, they were designed for relatively static loads only (and wind). As soon as one floor starts to collapse, that moving mass is so heavy that it's almost unstoppable. Perhaps there was a difference in time between the trade centers collapsing and how fast they would have collapsed in the event of a deliberate demolition, but we would be talking about fractions of a second, well within the margin of error, assuming you are measuring based on a crappy video.
- Status