Was 9/11 an inside job?

[patrick1]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

What a bunch of paranoid, delusional nonsense. My uncle was a steamfitter who was in the towers on 9/11- he was working on the building and you know what: no explosives, anywhere.  Oh wait, maybe he is also part of the grand conspiracy.  I also know a bunch of people who were working for Port Authority who were tasked to protect those buildings and would have noticed explosives being planted.  I guess those hundreds more people are in on it and I must look at them all as shifty bastards now.

Skepticism is a healthy emotion-paranoia is not.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

What a bunch of paranoid, delusional nonsense. My uncle was a steamfitter who was in the towers on 9/11- he was working on the building and you know what: no explosives, anywhere.  Oh wait, maybe he is also part of the grand conspiracy.  I also know a bunch of people who were working for Port Authority who were tasked to protect those buildings and would have noticed explosives being planted.  I guess those hundreds more people are in on it and I must look at them all as shifty bastards now.

Skepticism is a healthy emotion-paranoia is not.

Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all. The fact that your uncle didn't see explosives does not mean that there weren't any.

As William S. Burroughs said, paranoia means having all the facts.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think 9/11 was an Al Queda job, and that they worked closely with the Pakistani "CIA" and that Pakistan had a huge involvement in all of it... and that we feared blaming Pakistan for it because of nuclear tension.

But at this point Pakistan is on its knees and is ripe for Taliban takeover.  It's going to be the next huge warzone in our world.

[patrick1]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

What a bunch of paranoid, delusional nonsense. My uncle was a steamfitter who was in the towers on 9/11- he was working on the building and you know what: no explosives, anywhere.  Oh wait, maybe he is also part of the grand conspiracy.  I also know a bunch of people who were working for Port Authority who were tasked to protect those buildings and would have noticed explosives being planted.  I guess those hundreds more people are in on it and I must look at them all as shifty bastards now.

Skepticism is a healthy emotion-paranoia is not.

Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all. The fact that your uncle didn't see explosives does not mean that there weren't any.

As William S. Burroughs said, paranoia means having all the facts.

Haha, Ive never seen you provide a bit of evidence. You believe what you want to believe on all issues despite the facts. It is not m uncle it is thousands and tens of thousands of people. What you suggest is simply not possible and you have always refused to engage with other posters when you have been proven wrong.  It is really useless to even reply.  I am not sure what your goals are in life, but I fear your current attitude may get in your way.    

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

What a bunch of paranoid, delusional nonsense. My uncle was a steamfitter who was in the towers on 9/11- he was working on the building and you know what: no explosives, anywhere.  Oh wait, maybe he is also part of the grand conspiracy.  I also know a bunch of people who were working for Port Authority who were tasked to protect those buildings and would have noticed explosives being planted.  I guess those hundreds more people are in on it and I must look at them all as shifty bastards now.

Skepticism is a healthy emotion-paranoia is not.

Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all. The fact that your uncle didn't see explosives does not mean that there weren't any.

As William S. Burroughs said, paranoia means having all the facts.

Haha, Ive never seen you provide a bit of evidence. You believe what you want to believe on all issues despite the facts. It is not m uncle it is thousands and tens of thousands of people. What you suggest is simply not possible and you have always refused to engage with other posters when you have been proven wrong.  It is really useless to even reply.  I am not sure what your goals are in life, but I fear your current attitude may get in your way.    

Evidence for what? You people who adhere to Bush's story don't want to discuss any real issues, you just make these kinds of vague statements that can't possibly be refuted. Oh it's "simply not possible" because you said so.

It's funny how emotional you people get over something like this. "He called my president a liar, how dare he?!"


Btw, a Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No reason to believe those over this. Osama became a boogeyman that nobody could find. The U.S. government could release whatever statements it wanted; not like anyone could call up Bin Laden to verify.

We don't need to call him.  There are videos of him speaking - definitely Osama, not some American actor (just to head off your next idiotic delusional argument).  Why is it, then, that we can't find him?  Because he's in hiding.  Why is he in hiding?  Because he knows that if caught, he'll go on trial for his crimes, and he wants to avoid facing justice for what he has done.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No reason to believe those over this. Osama became a boogeyman that nobody could find. The U.S. government could release whatever statements it wanted; not like anyone could call up Bin Laden to verify.

We don't need to call him.  There are videos of him speaking - definitely Osama, not some American actor (just to head off your next idiotic delusional argument).  Why is it, then, that we can't find him?  Because he's in hiding.  Why is he in hiding?  Because he knows that if caught, he'll go on trial for his crimes, and he wants to avoid facing justice for what he has done.

Oh, definitely Osama? Because you've studied exactly what the real Osama bin Laden looked like and could tell who he is immediately from a mysterious low-quality video that somehow manages to show up on fedgov's doorstep? Riiiight....

Not to mention they could easily change the audio track even if they did use a video of the real Osama, to make him say what they wanted him to say.


By the way, Afghanistan offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. if evidence were provided that he was behind the attacks. The Bush regime refused the offer, saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".

[Franzl]

LOL

[patrick1]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

What a bunch of paranoid, delusional nonsense. My uncle was a steamfitter who was in the towers on 9/11- he was working on the building and you know what: no explosives, anywhere.  Oh wait, maybe he is also part of the grand conspiracy.  I also know a bunch of people who were working for Port Authority who were tasked to protect those buildings and would have noticed explosives being planted.  I guess those hundreds more people are in on it and I must look at them all as shifty bastards now.

Skepticism is a healthy emotion-paranoia is not.

Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all. The fact that your uncle didn't see explosives does not mean that there weren't any.

As William S. Burroughs said, paranoia means having all the facts.

Haha, Ive never seen you provide a bit of evidence. You believe what you want to believe on all issues despite the facts. It is not m uncle it is thousands and tens of thousands of people. What you suggest is simply not possible and you have always refused to engage with other posters when you have been proven wrong.  It is really useless to even reply.  I am not sure what your goals are in life, but I fear your current attitude may get in your way.    

Evidence for what? You people who adhere to Bush's story don't want to discuss any real issues, you just make these kinds of vague statements that can't possibly be refuted. Oh it's "simply not possible" because you said so.

It's funny how emotional you people get over something like this. "He called my president a liar, how dare he?!"


Btw, a Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

Ah, Jesus Christ.  Are computers planting explosives now?  They handled parts of electronic security systems in the 90's and their contracts had run out.  Private Security was heading by up by John Oneill's outfit and WTC was and is part of the PANY.  They were based there and had hundreds of personnel and officers.  Further, the NYC office of emergency management was based in WTC7.  Tough to convince all these unions guys to become part of a grand neo-con conspiracy. But all things are possible in fanstasyland, I guess.
Even within the article the blogger mentioned that they  handled a United contract in the 90's
What else you got?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

What a bunch of paranoid, delusional nonsense. My uncle was a steamfitter who was in the towers on 9/11- he was working on the building and you know what: no explosives, anywhere.  Oh wait, maybe he is also part of the grand conspiracy.  I also know a bunch of people who were working for Port Authority who were tasked to protect those buildings and would have noticed explosives being planted.  I guess those hundreds more people are in on it and I must look at them all as shifty bastards now.

Skepticism is a healthy emotion-paranoia is not.

Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all. The fact that your uncle didn't see explosives does not mean that there weren't any.

As William S. Burroughs said, paranoia means having all the facts.

Haha, Ive never seen you provide a bit of evidence. You believe what you want to believe on all issues despite the facts. It is not m uncle it is thousands and tens of thousands of people. What you suggest is simply not possible and you have always refused to engage with other posters when you have been proven wrong.  It is really useless to even reply.  I am not sure what your goals are in life, but I fear your current attitude may get in your way.    

Evidence for what? You people who adhere to Bush's story don't want to discuss any real issues, you just make these kinds of vague statements that can't possibly be refuted. Oh it's "simply not possible" because you said so.

It's funny how emotional you people get over something like this. "He called my president a liar, how dare he?!"


Btw, a Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

Ah, Jesus Christ.  Are computers planting explosives now?  They handled parts of electronic security systems in the 90's and their contracts had run out.  Private Security was heading by up by John Oneill's outfit and WTC was and is part of the PANY.  They were based there and had hundreds of personnel and officers.  Further, the NYC office of emergency management was based in WTC7.  Tough to convince all these unions guys to become part of a grand neo-con conspiracy. But all things are possible in fanstasyland, I guess.
Even within the article the blogger mentioned that they  handled a United contract in the 90's
What else you got?

Nobody is claiming that there was some "grand neo-con conspiracy" involving low-level employees. What else you got besides strawman arguments and a pissy attitude?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What else you got besides strawman arguments and a pissy attitude?

Libby, you just described your M.O.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What else you got besides strawman arguments and a pissy attitude?

Libby, you just described your M.O.

The lengths people will go to avoid engaging in respectful and serious debate...

[Franzl]

The lengths people will go to avoid engaging in respectful and serious debate...

Well, recognizing your own faults is the first step to correcting that problem

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Oh, definitely Osama? Because you've studied exactly what the real Osama bin Laden looked like and could tell who he is immediately from a mysterious low-quality video that somehow manages to show up on fedgov's doorstep? Riiiight....

Not to mention they could easily change the audio track even if they did use a video of the real Osama, to make him say what they wanted him to say.

I haven't, but plenty of experts (not just Government experts) have, and they all agree it's Osama, and that he is saying the things the video records him as saying.  And the video's aren't that low quality; nor did they just magically appear on the government's doorstep.

[patrick1]

What is the strawman? Your facts are wrong and your reading comprehension was terrible on the blogger evidence you put forward.  There is video evidence of the planes hitting the buildings and the engineering facts explain how the towers fell.  Comprehensive works are out there explaining in detail how this transpired.  I don't see any valid evidence or scenarios that cannot be shot down without much effort from your "side".  How was your theory done and by whom and by what means?  

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh, definitely Osama? Because you've studied exactly what the real Osama bin Laden looked like and could tell who he is immediately from a mysterious low-quality video that somehow manages to show up on fedgov's doorstep? Riiiight....

Not to mention they could easily change the audio track even if they did use a video of the real Osama, to make him say what they wanted him to say.

I haven't, but plenty of experts (not just Government experts) have, and they all agree it's Osama, and that he is saying the things the video records him as saying.  And the video's aren't that low quality; nor did they just magically appear on the government's doorstep.

More vague allegations. Oh, "plenty of experts agree".

This is basically what the whole official 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on. Vague allegations built upon vague allegations which people use to justify in their minds what would otherwise appear to be a blatantly absurd theory put forth by the Bush administration.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is basically what the whole official 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on. Vague allegations built upon vague allegations which people use to justify in their minds what would otherwise appear to be a blatantly absurd theory put forth by the Bush administration.

How is "a group of terrorists spend years preparing for one major terrorist strike on major centers of finance, government, and defense, and then execute those plans" a blatantly absurd theory?  It sounds pretty realistic to me.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What is the strawman? Your facts are wrong and your reading comprehension was terrible on the blogger evidence you put forward.  There is video evidence of the planes hitting the buildings and the engineering facts explain how the towers fell.  Comprehensive works are out there explaining in detail how this transpired.  I don't see any valid evidence or scenarios that cannot be shot down without much effort from your "side".  How was your theory done and by whom and by what means?  

There are comprehensive works out there explaining why the official story could not have happened, and comprehensive works which explicitly refute the "refuters".

I don't deal in conspiracy theories; I deal in conspiracy facts. And the fact of the matter is, the official government story behind 9/11 is full of gaping holes. There are too many unanswered questions; there needs to be a new and independent investigation into the whole affair.

[Franzl]

there needs to be a new and independent investigation into the whole affair.

And in the event that investigation doesn't show what you believe to be true.....it's obviously rigged, right?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This is basically what the whole official 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on. Vague allegations built upon vague allegations which people use to justify in their minds what would otherwise appear to be a blatantly absurd theory put forth by the Bush administration.

How is "a group of terrorists spend years preparing for one major terrorist strike on major centers of finance, government, and defense, and then execute those plans" a blatantly absurd theory?  It sounds pretty realistic to me.

Because, Benjamin, it is not reasonable to believe that a group of ragtag fundamentalists in Afghanistan somehow managed to pull off massive terrorist attacks with military precision in the homeland of the most powerful nation in the world.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

there needs to be a new and independent investigation into the whole affair.

And in the event that investigation doesn't show what you believe to be true.....it's obviously rigged, right?

Um, it's the government and it's defenders that don't want to open a new independent investigation. It's not the truthers who are apparently frightened by the thought of letting some sunlight in so we can try to piece together what really happened.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Because, Benjamin, it is not reasonable to believe that a group of ragtag fundamentalists in Afghanistan somehow managed to pull off massive terrorist attacks with military precision in the homeland of the most powerful nation in the world.

"Military precision"?  One plane didn't make it, the second WTC plane nearly missed the tower altogether; this is not military precision.

Um, it's the government and it's defenders that don't want to open a new independent investigation. It's not the truthers who are apparently frightened by the thought of letting some sunlight in so we can try to piece together what really happened.

Of course not; y'all will just continue calling every investigation fake, and rigged, and a government ploy.  It never ends with paranoid lunatics like you.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

"Military precision"?  One plane didn't make it, the second WTC plane nearly missed the tower altogether; this is not military precision.

Seriously? Do you know how much precision it would have required just to fly those planes the way they did, never mind everything else that had to fall into place and be just right for the attacks to have happened as successfully as they did?

Also it's not entirely surprising that the plane that didn't make it was the plane supposedly headed for Shrub's house.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, unlike the regime's defenders; we are not interested in defending any preconceived theories, we just want an objective investigation to find out the truth.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

"Military precision"?  One plane didn't make it, the second WTC plane nearly missed the tower altogether; this is not military precision.

Seriously? Do you know how much precision it would have required just to fly those planes the way they did, never mind everything else that had to fall into place and be just right for the attacks to have happened as successfully as they did?

Libby, these terrorists were trained pilots.  It isn't that difficult for a trained pilot to do what they did.

No, unlike the regime's defenders; we are not interested in defending any preconceived theories, we just want an objective investigation to find out the truth.

We had an objective investigation; it didn't say what you wanted it to say, so you rejected it.

[patrick1]

This is basically what the whole official 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on. Vague allegations built upon vague allegations which people use to justify in their minds what would otherwise appear to be a blatantly absurd theory put forth by the Bush administration.

How is "a group of terrorists spend years preparing for one major terrorist strike on major centers of finance, government, and defense, and then execute those plans" a blatantly absurd theory?  It sounds pretty realistic to me.

Because, Benjamin, it is not reasonable to believe that a group of ragtag fundamentalists in Afghanistan somehow managed to pull off massive terrorist attacks with military precision in the homeland of the most powerful nation in the world.

It was actually quite simple and that is scary part.  There are plenty of scenarios that you gameplan that are simple/cheap to carry out and can kill massive amounts of people.  A couple of tons of fertilizer and industrial chemicals wiped out Texas City in 1947 and Halifax in WWI. The hijackers took of huge gaps in our entry and visa policy and that the CIA and FBI or ICE didnt bother to speak to each other. Any yokel could hop on a flight simulator and take lessons to learn to fly enough to take controls while in stable flight. Airplane tickets aren't expensive. The knives they carried were legal on board at the time.  Through movies and past scenarios you have a calm cabin in a hijacking because traditional methods was  to go to airport and have demands met.  Further, there were and are plenty of motivated jihadists who hate us because we have been in there affairs since the 40's and were garrisoned in their holy land. The Planes hit the buildings, knock out some support columns, fires and jet fuel create heat to structurally weaken the steel, floors bend, the outer supports snap and the floors pancaked.
Atta and Co get points for ingenuity, but it is a pretty straight forward thing.  Sad thing is a lot of people were asleep at the wheel and I think we are heading down that road again.  The bad economy and budget cuts affect local law enforcement measures and response which is much more important than the feds.