Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I recently discovered to my horror that one of my brothers is a 9-11 truther.  I spent a lot of time talking to him about the process of preparing a controlled demolition of a building and how buildings collapse under such a process as opposed to how the twin towers collapsed.  I also spent a lot of time showing him photos and testimony of plane wreckage at the Pentagon, to refute the theory that the building had been hit by a missile.  The evidence I gave him had utterly no effect.  Trying to talk to him made me appalled that we in this country can't even agree on relatively easily accessible facts anymore.

Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01.  The U.S. government had no bigger role in this specific attack than underestimating lots of cues that something like it would happen, and not keeping a close enough watch on who was in the country.  That's what the facts establish.  And that's already bad enough.  No conspiracy theories necessary or true.

I've run into the same thing debating these so called "truthers". They laughed at me when I pointed to a Popular Mechanics article which basically took every truther question and obliterated it. They basically tell me that I am "brainwashed" by the government, etc. lol Instead of debating these losers it's really just best to make fun of them really.

Except that "Popular Mechanics" hit piece has been thoroughly debunked countless times, just like all the other "Debunking 9/11 truth" nonsense.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I recently discovered to my horror that one of my brothers is a 9-11 truther.  I spent a lot of time talking to him about the process of preparing a controlled demolition of a building and how buildings collapse under such a process as opposed to how the twin towers collapsed.  I also spent a lot of time showing him photos and testimony of plane wreckage at the Pentagon, to refute the theory that the building had been hit by a missile.  The evidence I gave him had utterly no effect.  Trying to talk to him made me appalled that we in this country can't even agree on relatively easily accessible facts anymore.

Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01.  The U.S. government had no bigger role in this specific attack than underestimating lots of cues that something like it would happen, and not keeping a close enough watch on who was in the country.  That's what the facts establish.  And that's already bad enough.  No conspiracy theories necessary or true.

I've run into the same thing debating these so called "truthers". They laughed at me when I pointed to a Popular Mechanics article which basically took every truther question and obliterated it. They basically tell me that I am "brainwashed" by the government, etc. lol Instead of debating these losers it's really just best to make fun of them really.

Except that "Popular Mechanics" hit piece has been thoroughly debunked countless times, just like all the other "Debunking 9/11 truth" nonsense.

Or the Truther nonsense.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Semaphore]

I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories much. The controlled demolition theories are especially preposterous. However, there are certain results that make it tempting to wonder if it may have actually been orchestrated by Bush or the government. Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed after the attacks. He conveniently went on vacation during August despite the existence of a memo stating that bin Laden was determined to strike. The country was quite happy to go to war after the attacks. If I remember correctly, a nontrivial subset of the population was convinced that 9/11 was somehow caused by Saddam Hussein or Iraq.

Of course I blame this unfortunate mess on gross incompetence and forces beyond our control, but the aftermath is still rather interesting.

[minionofmidas]

Do truthers believe that security should go back to pre-911 days?

I think it is clearly better to run a tiny risk of being blown up than put up with the security.

Amen!

*signs petititonÜ

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

There is no question whether or not muslim al Queda terrorists were involved. To say otherwise is pure lunacy. Is it possible that someone in the US government collaborated with them for there own gain? Sure.....I'd argue that this is even likely. Too many people in positions of power have agendas hidden from the public. Is it possible that this extends all the way to higher ups in the Bush administration. Sure....less likely but sure.....and I highly doubt that president Bush himself knew despite the August memo. This does not indicate that he was in on the plot - it just shows that he is an idiot for not taking it seriously.

[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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's only because he has defeated you all with his higher grasp of logic!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Libertas' "debating" is like this. Like clockwork:

-He makes a statement, usually ridiculous but sometimes not (as noted before I agreed with him with the bit on Einzige, I also agreed with him about Sarah Palin not being a paleoconservative in another infamous example of this).
-Sometimes retorts to that and provides counter-points against it.
-He responds laughing those off without attempting to rebuke any of them and simply restates his point often throwing in an ad hominem attack as well.

It's actually more irritating if you actually agree with his side.

[Phony Moderate]

Even Dubya himself would probably be able to win in a debate with Libertas.

[Badger]

Guys, guys, GUYS! As much as I have to remind myself this (and frequently forget ), Libertas's primary ideological adherence on the forum isn't conservative or libertarian, it's "attention whore who thinks he's 'edgy'".

Libertas is a truther nut (or a nut who's also a truther; take your pick). Don't feed the troll.

Officially starting the countdown to when I ignore my own words here.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

No, there's no "hole" there. There were (and are) plenty of fanatics willing to blow themselves up for al-CIAda to recruit.

Guys, guys, GUYS! As much as I have to remind myself this (and frequently forget ), Libertas's primary ideological adherence on the forum isn't conservative or libertarian, it's "attention whore who thinks he's 'edgy'".

Libertas is a truther nut (or a nut who's also a truther; take your pick). Don't feed the troll.

Officially starting the countdown to when I ignore my own words here.

I'm not edgy. This stuff is mainstream now.

[Phony Moderate]

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.

No, there's no "hole" there. There were (and are) plenty of fanatics willing to blow themselves up for al-CIAda to recruit.

Guys, guys, GUYS! As much as I have to remind myself this (and frequently forget ), Libertas's primary ideological adherence on the forum isn't conservative or libertarian, it's "attention whore who thinks he's 'edgy'".

Libertas is a truther nut (or a nut who's also a truther; take your pick). Don't feed the troll.

Officially starting the countdown to when I ignore my own words here.

I'm not edgy. This stuff is mainstream now.

Compelling.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

No, there's no "hole" there. There were (and are) plenty of fanatics willing to blow themselves up for al-CIAda to recruit.

There are plenty of people willing to blow themselves up to benefit neocon corporate conspiracies or whatever?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

No, there's no "hole" there. There were (and are) plenty of fanatics willing to blow themselves up for al-CIAda to recruit.

There are plenty of people willing to blow themselves up to benefit neocon corporate conspiracies or whatever?

No, willing to blow themselves up for Allah (though really motivated by politics rather than religion).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

No, there's no "hole" there. There were (and are) plenty of fanatics willing to blow themselves up for al-CIAda to recruit.

There are plenty of people willing to blow themselves up to benefit neocon corporate conspiracies or whatever?

No, willing to blow themselves up for Allah (though really motivated by politics rather than religion).

Oh so you are admitting it was Muslims responsible for 9/11.

[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?

[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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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

Correct.  The planes the Muslims were flying brought down the planes; but that is just a technicality.

How do you explain the statements of Osama, KSM, etc.  Especially where they say when they planned things, they didn't expect the towers to collapse?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

Correct.  The planes the Muslims were flying brought down the planes; but that is just a technicality.

I'm glad you agree that the Muslims did not bring down the towers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What statements? It's incredibly easy for the government and it's media outlets to concoct "evidence" like that. Bin Laden made statements to a Pakistani newspaper a few weeks after 9/11 explicitly denying involvement in the attacks.

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.... I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word. "
--Osama bin Laden, Ummat, 28 September 2001

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Then what about the multitude of statements later on contradicting those?  Especially his own statements justifying the attacks in the context (albeit his own twisted version) of Islam?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Then what about the multitude of statements later on contradicting those?  Especially his own statements justifying the attacks in the context (albeit his own twisted version) of Islam?

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.