Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Gustaf]

No. Even if I think he would have done it if he'd ever had the capacity to think of it, George Bush was just too much of a dumb bastard to ever mastermind something that massive.

George Bush would not have had to have personally masterminded the logistics of such an operation, anymore so than he personally ordered the particular battle tactics being used on the ground in Iraq.

That doesn't mean he's absolved of responsibility for things that went on under his authority.

Maybe it's because the aliens who hybridized humans have influence over human governments? Wouldn't David Icke agree?

I'm not sure how that addresses my post, sorry. 9/11 Liars sure have a strange way of debating.

So, why don't you provide some evidence for your hypothesis? Or do you still remember being destroyed on this topic the last time you debated it?

[Gustaf]

No. Even if I think he would have done it if he'd ever had the capacity to think of it, George Bush was just too much of a dumb bastard to ever mastermind something that massive.

George Bush would not have had to have personally masterminded the logistics of such an operation, anymore so than he personally ordered the particular battle tactics being used on the ground in Iraq.

That doesn't mean he's absolved of responsibility for things that went on under his authority.

Maybe it's because the aliens who hybridized humans have influence over human governments? Wouldn't David Icke agree?

I'm not sure how that addresses my post, sorry. 9/11 Liars sure have a strange way of debating.

So, why don't you provide some evidence for your hypothesis? Or do you still remember being destroyed on this topic the last time you debated it?

Oh? Go ahead and dig up the old thread, Gus, let's see who it was who refused to ever debate the facts.

I guess that means "no" and "yes" in that order.

[Gustaf]

For the record, here is Libertas debate piece providing evidence for the facts of the matter:

Libertas, I'm curious, how come none of the millions upon millions of the engineers educated all over the world, many in countries that are hostile to the US and many with anti-American personal political convictions have pointed out the impossibility of this happening?

Plenty of engineers have dismissed the official government conspiracy theory as bunkum. Not that appeal to authority is a legitimate argument to begin with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because that would be ridiculous. Muslims would not have had inside access to the WTC to plant the necessary explosives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no the specifics of the WTC collapse are very much relevant to this discussion.

He doesn't of course actually mention any engineers. Even if there were plenty he doesn't really explain why this isn't accepted as universal fact. I know many engineers personally. My brother is an engineer. Why wouldn't any of the engineers I know tell me that this is impossible if it really is?

Again, this isn't rocket science. Construction engineering isn't a field containing 5 people who can be bribed or threatened or anything. There are lots and lots.

On the more important point, Libertas has also had this to say:

The airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center were real. That doesn't conflict with the controlled demolition theory.

Yes...but why? Why fly the airplanes into the buildings at all if you're doing controlled demolition anyway? I don't see what the point would be in adding unnecessary risk of getting caught.

Because that's what the whole terror attack was about. The idea of commercial airliners that we've all been on being hijacked so easily with box-cutters and then crashed into iconic American steel skyscrapers had a psychological effect on people. It unnerved them.

Plus it also seemed plausible to the average American who wasn't going to delve deeply to ever question what the government said.

If the buildings just started collapsing out of nowhere, it would have looked pretty darn suspicious. Islamic extremists being able to set up a controlled demolition of the twin 110-story towers of the World Trade Center would have stretched believability too far even for the average unthinking American.

I still don't see why muslims being able to set up controlled demolition would have stretched the imagination more than something which is, according to Libertas, physically impossible and something that millions of people around the world would easily spot as physically impossible.

Anyway, Libertas, don't you think there was any physically possible way that Muslim terrorists could have destroyed WTC? If there is one, then why wouldn't the government have done it that way if they wanted to frame Muslim terrorists?

[Gustaf]

For the record, here is Libertas debate piece providing evidence for the facts of the matter:

Libertas, I'm curious, how come none of the millions upon millions of the engineers educated all over the world, many in countries that are hostile to the US and many with anti-American personal political convictions have pointed out the impossibility of this happening?

Plenty of engineers have dismissed the official government conspiracy theory as bunkum. Not that appeal to authority is a legitimate argument to begin with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because that would be ridiculous. Muslims would not have had inside access to the WTC to plant the necessary explosives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no the specifics of the WTC collapse are very much relevant to this discussion.

He doesn't of course actually mention any engineers. Even if there were plenty he doesn't really explain why this isn't accepted as universal fact. I know many engineers personally. My brother is an engineer. Why wouldn't any of the engineers I know tell me that this is impossible if it really is?

Again, this isn't rocket science. Construction engineering isn't a field containing 5 people who can be bribed or threatened or anything. There are lots and lots.

On the more important point, Libertas has also had this to say:

The airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center were real. That doesn't conflict with the controlled demolition theory.

Yes...but why? Why fly the airplanes into the buildings at all if you're doing controlled demolition anyway? I don't see what the point would be in adding unnecessary risk of getting caught.

Because that's what the whole terror attack was about. The idea of commercial airliners that we've all been on being hijacked so easily with box-cutters and then crashed into iconic American steel skyscrapers had a psychological effect on people. It unnerved them.

Plus it also seemed plausible to the average American who wasn't going to delve deeply to ever question what the government said.

If the buildings just started collapsing out of nowhere, it would have looked pretty darn suspicious. Islamic extremists being able to set up a controlled demolition of the twin 110-story towers of the World Trade Center would have stretched believability too far even for the average unthinking American.

I still don't see why muslims being able to set up controlled demolition would have stretched the imagination more than something which is, according to Libertas, physically impossible and something that millions of people around the world would easily spot as physically impossible.

Anyway, Libertas, don't you think there was any physically possible way that Muslim terrorists could have destroyed WTC? If there is one, then why wouldn't the government have done it that way if they wanted to frame Muslim terrorists?

If there were Muslims involved in the September 11 attacks, it was incidental. Whoever did it was doing it with the knowledge and backing of the Bush-Cheney regime.

Ok, now you're just stating stuff without actually debating. I know you have trouble with constructing actual arguments, but I asked a simple question here. If the government planned this and they wanted it to look like Muslim terrorists then why didn't they do it in a way that was feasible for Muslim terrorists to have done? Wouldn't that be better than trying to synchronize several different events simultaneously, one group of which couldn't have been done by Muslim terrorists and one group of which couldn't have been done at all?

[Gustaf]

Really the biggest hole in the theories (out of the many) is where the people willing to be suicide bombers came from if they were not much more than mercenaries basically.

On top of that their were credible threats before the events of that day.

That's another amusing aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy theories - that the government knew about it beforehand because there were reports about it. But, of course, if the government was planning it themselves there would never have been any such reports.

But I see Libertas has run away from this debate, again.

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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.

No, see, now you've done your little mistake again. You're still not answering my actual question, so I will try and ask it a third (or is it a fourth time?):

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?

You're claiming that the US government planned to do this and then blame it on Muslim terrorists. Then why did they do it in a way that you claim could not have been done by Muslim terrorists and then cover it up with a method you claim is physically impossible? Why not do it in a way that would have been feasible for Muslim terrorists?

[Gustaf]

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.

No, see, now you've done your little mistake again. You're still not answering my actual question, so I will try and ask it a third (or is it a fourth time?):

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?

You're claiming that the US government planned to do this and then blame it on Muslim terrorists. Then why did they do it in a way that you claim could not have been done by Muslim terrorists and then cover it up with a method you claim is physically impossible? Why not do it in a way that would have been feasible for Muslim terrorists?

I already answered this question. Whether the Muslim terrorists were actually capable of pulling it off was irrelevant; all that mattered was whether the people could be made to think that the Muslim terrorists were capable- and in fact, responsible- for the attacks. Judging by the poll results, obviously they could.

Irrelevant? How on Earth would that be irrelevant? You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. What was the motive for picking a way that was, as you say, completely ridiculous and an obvious lie? Surely, they didn't choose this strategy just to allow you to easily realize that it must be a conspiracy?

Imagine you're Bush and Cheney and whoever else was in on this, and you sit around discussing how to go about it. Presumably you come up with the idea of doing controlled demolition. Then someone points out that this is not good because everyone will realize that Muslims couldn't have done it that way. The next logical step for me would have been to say "right, let's do it another way". You seem to think that they thought "well, let's pretend they did it by planes and set off two simultaneous events that must be perfectly coordinated or else we're screwed"* and then NO ONE thought it would be a problem that it was actually, according to you at least, physically IMPOSSIBLE to do it that way. Why would they think the first part was a problem, if the second wasn't?

*This brings me to another problem, no two other problems:

1. How did they get all these bombs into the Pentagon, which preusmably would have some security?
2. How come no bombs went off where the 4th plane was supposed to crash (Capitol Hill)? Why didn't anyone find those bombs?

[Gustaf]

Oh, I assumed you had at least rudimentary knowledge on the subject matter at hand. My mistake.

There was 3rd plane that crashed into Pentagon. At least according to the government conspiracy theory. There was also a 4th plane which crashed into Pennsylvania somewhere, supposed to have been headed for Capitol Hill.

I'm assuming that these attacks were also controlled demolition. Or did they actually use only planes for those attacks according to you?

[Gustaf]

Oh, I assumed you had at least rudimentary knowledge on the subject matter at hand. My mistake.

There was 3rd plane that crashed into Pentagon. At least according to the government conspiracy theory. There was also a 4th plane which crashed into Pennsylvania somewhere, supposed to have been headed for Capitol Hill.

I'm assuming that these attacks were also controlled demolition. Or did they actually use only planes for those attacks according to you?

Well Libby is no longer posting, but I believe the standard conspiracy theory excuse is that it was actually a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon and the plane over Pennsylvania was just shot down. Of course neither explanation makes much sense and violates tons of physical evidence and footage (usually just handwaved by saying that that all is part of the conspiracy as well, some lady who took pictures of United 93 has gotten tons of death threats from the Truther crowd.) but then again what about these theories does make sense? I would like to hear Libby explain how you shoot a cruise missile and scramble a jet to shoot down a plane without anyone finding out and more importantly WHY one would bother to do so when they've already destroyed the WTC.

Why shoot down a plane in Pennsylvania? That makes no sense either. But I guess trying to debate our respective interpretations of this nonsense is kind of pointless.