9/11 conspiracy, A BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA

[AgentSmith88]

what you are saying is that if bombs had been planted at the base to take the towers down then more than 5% of those below the impact zone would have been in the death toll.

Well you know...they had big basements

They had to. The buildings are anchored onto Bedrock.

and apparently a building shaking because it's about to come down feels alot like a bomb going off in the basement to some janitors.....

No you're just dumb. The building wasn't coming down then. He heard one explosion that he thought was on the roof. So he took the stairs to go up and investigate. THEN he heard an explosion under him. So he left the building. THEN LATER THE BUILDING FELL. I was fairly clear on that.

and apparently a building shaking because it's about to come down feels alot like a bomb going off in the basement to some janitors.....

if a plane hits the 70th-80th floor, I highly doubt that a janitor on the floor level will hear many bangs from 70 floors up.

Holy shit, that's gotta be a world record. 18 of them too. I wonder how they escaped... They had about 10 minutes right? They actually used the elevator? (I thought they shut em down automatically after the building detects such a huge fire) No way they could run down the stairs that quickly...

If it's the elevator, then taking the elvator seems to be the best way to escape in that scenario.

Where the jets hit it took out the stairs and elevators. I dunno either. I think maybe the injured where immediately ushered out.

I'll just say that I don't trust our government enough to NOT consider the possibility of an inside job.

I already mentioned Operation Northwoods which was a very similar plan. Inside Job plans have existed.

Well, good for them. Clearest headed people there..

The man who built the towers died when the tower he was in collapsed. That is the ultimate sign that no one thought they would go. It's never happened.
Plus the firefighters at the fire said they needed two hand lines and everything would be put out. No reason to panic.

Our government isn't some evil entity.

That is some kind of oxymoron sentence, lol.

2. The conspiracy involved blowing up our own buildings so we could invade a foreign nation.

That's conjecture though. Really it's better to stick to facts.

Nothing else in the Middle East would be worth it for the US.

Elected officials may disagree with each other but they are all in effect serving this country by trying to do what they think is right for it.

Are you trolling? America is a two party system where politicians from both sides serve their parties interests before they serve our countries interests.

Iraq was clearly where Bush wanted to go, why not plant the evidence that it was Iraqi terrorists or an Iraqi backed plot?

That is conjecture. I could throw a thousand "What-ifs" in there.
Iraq was a fairly well developed/established nation. It's important to remember that.

The actual event was mainly Saudis at the will of a group taking refuge in Afghanistan. That doesn't fit anywhere within the war with Iraq story.

It didn't matter to anyone at the time though did it?

Hypocrite much? Your entire fucking argument is conjecture and what ifs! I'm trying to figure out what motives you idiots think the government had for blowing up those buildings.

[BigBallinStalin]

In addition to Frigidus's reply, why would the government even want to collapse the towers if they weren't going to fall? If they didn't fall, the casualties and the sheer shock of such an attack were still sufficient for the US to go to war with whoever after that...

[Titanic]

In addition to Frigidus's reply, why would the government even want to collapse the towers if they weren't going to fall? If they didn't fall, the casualties and the sheer shock of such an attack were still sufficient for the US to go to war with whoever after that...

[jay_a2j]

It wouldn't take hundreds to rig two skyscrapers top to bottom with explosives, set to go off in a manner that would mimic a collapse (but not quite, they didn't want to make it resemble a collapse too much), monitor several religious extremists and encourage them to strike particular targets on a certain day, fire a missile at the pentagon, spirit away the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon somewhere and eliminate those on board without radar picking anything unusual up, and ensure that not a single person involved in the job would blow said job's cover before or after it occurred?

As I already said, thermite can be made into a paint. It could have been painted on in the towers without the painters even knowing what they were doing.

The radar did pick up something unusual. The plane was flying west, disappeared from the radar, then reappeared heading east toward the pentagon.


If a person does come forward people like yourself write them off as a nutjob. People have come forward. But they are not believed! An EYEWITNESS to a found black box was on Tru TV a few weeks ago saying he saw it with his own eyes but the 911 commission report says NONE of the black boxes were recovered. This guy also said the FBI came to his house and told him to "stop talking about the black boxes".


I get the feeling Dick Chaney could go on national tv and say he knew, helped it happen and STILL no one would believe him. Thanks in part to the media who have done an outstanding job at making "truthers" out to be "nutjobs".

[jay_a2j]

In addition to Frigidus's reply, why would the government even want to collapse the towers if they weren't going to fall? If they didn't fall, the casualties and the sheer shock of such an attack were still sufficient for the US to go to war with whoever after that...

Because they wouldn't know how many casualties there would be. Bringing down the towers would ensure that there would be many.

Actually, probably not. In '93 after the WTC bombing (in which there were only 6 killed) they tried to pass anti-terrorism legislation, it failed. But after the '95 Oklahoma Federal Building was bombed (killing 168) it was passed. They need high numbers of death to get stuff they want through Congress.

[hecter]

It wouldn't take hundreds to rig two skyscrapers top to bottom with explosives, set to go off in a manner that would mimic a collapse (but not quite, they didn't want to make it resemble a collapse too much), monitor several religious extremists and encourage them to strike particular targets on a certain day, fire a missile at the pentagon, spirit away the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon somewhere and eliminate those on board without radar picking anything unusual up, and ensure that not a single person involved in the job would blow said job's cover before or after it occurred?

As I already said, thermite can be made into a paint. It could have been painted on in the towers without the painters even knowing what they were doing.

The radar did pick up something unusual. The plane was flying west, disappeared from the radar, then reappeared heading east toward the pentagon.


If a person does come forward people like yourself write them off as a nutjob. People have come forward. But they are not believed! An EYEWITNESS to a found black box was on Tru TV a few weeks ago saying he saw it with his own eyes but the 911 commission report says NONE of the black boxes were recovered. This guy also said the FBI came to his house and told him to "stop talking about the black boxes".


I get the feeling Dick Chaney could go on national tv and say he knew, helped it happen and STILL no one would believe him. Thanks in part to the media who have done an outstanding job at making "truthers" out to be "nutjobs".

You're talking about slathering things with an extremely volatile substance. One little premature fire, or a dropped match, or a wayward spark from a welder would completely ruin their plan.

[Frigidus]

It wouldn't take hundreds to rig two skyscrapers top to bottom with explosives, set to go off in a manner that would mimic a collapse (but not quite, they didn't want to make it resemble a collapse too much), monitor several religious extremists and encourage them to strike particular targets on a certain day, fire a missile at the pentagon, spirit away the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon somewhere and eliminate those on board without radar picking anything unusual up, and ensure that not a single person involved in the job would blow said job's cover before or after it occurred?

As I already said, thermite can be made into a paint. It could have been painted on in the towers without the painters even knowing what they were doing.

The radar did pick up something unusual. The plane was flying west, disappeared from the radar, then reappeared heading east toward the pentagon.


If a person does come forward people like yourself write them off as a nutjob. People have come forward. But they are not believed! An EYEWITNESS to a found black box was on Tru TV a few weeks ago saying he saw it with his own eyes but the 911 commission report says NONE of the black boxes were recovered. This guy also said the FBI came to his house and told him to "stop talking about the black boxes".


I get the feeling Dick Chaney could go on national tv and say he knew, helped it happen and STILL no one would believe him. Thanks in part to the media who have done an outstanding job at making "truthers" out to be "nutjobs".

You're talking about slathering things with an extremely volatile substance. One little premature fire, or a dropped match, or a wayward spark from a welder would completely ruin their plan.

And there would be no way to cover their asses if that happened. We're talking about the destruction of a skyscraper. If it just spontaneously collapsed people wouldn't buy that these were run of the mill terrorists.

Besides, paintable thermite alone wouldn't explain how they managed to destroy the building in such a way that it looked like it collapsed under strain. This shit would have needed to be rigged by an expert, most likely a team of experts. They would have had to spent a lot of time setting things up, and with a demolition on such a huge scale using volatile substances something could easily have gone wrong and made it clear that there were explosives.

Also, what is Tru TV?

[Phatscotty]

[bigimg]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WsE6M_RjBIY/RvkBUIF9nEI/AAAAAAAAEGU/WrhVFCX2XwY/s400/ah438fin-ImageF_00057.jpg[/bigimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9_lGXNhWus

highly symbolic?

Rockefeller and Dr. Manhatten. Art reflecting reality?

[jay_a2j]

Also, what is Tru TV?

Channel on Satellite TV. (My favorite station)

Tru TV Conspiracy Theory This is the black box guy.

Tru TV Most Shocking

Tru TV Most Daring

Tru TV Worlds Dumbest

Their website trutv.com



My favorite show is.... Forensic Files

[Juan_Bottom]

Question: supposing it were an inside job, would the opposite party take advantage of knowledge of any information that would point to that? I imagine that any sort of correspondence linking the previous administration would be destroyed, but with the handing over of the reigns, would it not be likely that reliable information might be passed over?

What you're kind of trying to say is, wouldn't the Dems say "Wait, this looks like a missal, let's impeach all Republicans" right? I wasn't quit sure
Some Politicians have questioned on record. But I think that the bulk of these questions came from Independents. The political landscape that has been created however is one where you can't question it or you get ridiculed. And then worse. Some people have lost their jobs and been blacklisted over this. Hell, I've been asking questions and I have gotten is ignored.
You also have to remember single ambitions. As I pointed out in this thread the CIA had a massive human experimentation (on American citizens) program and nothing has ever been done about it. We only just recently learned that mind control and secretly giving psychotropic drugs were part of the program. We don't know how big it really was, but we know that it happened on a nationwide scale. And you don't see that being politicized either.

And when you consider that, do we think that even Bush, in his notorious wisdom, would risk threatening his buddies' future for a regime change in another country? I realize we are getting into some serious hypothetical questions (to be fair, analysis of the facts has not come anywhere close to convincing me of the possibility of an inside job), but all of these considerations do bear on the decision-making process of staging a terrorist attack on your own people. When I consider all these possibilities, it really just makes the inside job hypothesis seem less and less likely.

Well so long as we are just being hypothetical, what if this did happen and had nothing to do with politics at all? What about just straight cash?

And when you talk about analysis of the facts, give us a rep.

Which reminds me. The Joint Chiefs of Staff around the early 1950s did hammer out that plan of Operation Northwoods, but it was never carried out.

If there was a kind of inside job that Juan and Jay are talking about,

Well I'm glad that fucking reminded you because I only mentioned it twice earlier in your fucking thread, and you quoted Jay and I as putting forth this idea of a massive inside job in the same post. Am I invisible? Neoteny didn't bring this up or remind you, I DID.

That and if such an attack were to be carried out, how many years could such a horrendous crime be kept secret?

Since we don't know jack shit about what US operatives do, or our involvement with other intelligence agencies/foreign nationals, then to your question I would have to say FOREVER ON ANYTHING THEY HAVE EVER DONE.
You guys are all getting hung up on "how could it be kept a secret" instead of "how did they prove that heat at a temp of 2000 degrees below the melting point of structural steel for 12 seconds destroy all three towers?"

If there was a kind of inside job that Juan and Jay are talking about, there would be many many people involved in such an operation. How many of those operatives would stay secret about such a horrendous crime?

No, and why do you even think that. How many men do we put in our SEAL combat teams?
AND AGAIN, though I am sure that you will be reminded by someone else's post later, our government is full of secrets involving millions of people. LBJ said he wanted to pull out of Vietnam but his friends wouldn't let him. Same exact goddamn difference isn't it? Thousands of Americans dead so a few select people outside of office could profit.
Any secret operation could be pulled off by anyone. It's a damn secret isn't it. Who said it had to be American's planting bombs? Who said it had to be an actual recognizable bomb? You have the infinite power of your imagination here and yet NONE OF YOU can picture a scenario that even works? It's clear that you've already got your answers, you just want someone else to tell you how you reached your conclusion. And I am here to say that you'll just have to guess, because that is what NIST did too.

Sure, some agents of ours have done some terrible things, but this would be the most horrendous and hardest for one to keep secret to one's self

For who? You are attempting to say that all people think like you do.

It wouldn't take hundreds to rig two skyscrapers top to bottom with explosives, set to go off in a manner that would mimic a collapse (but not quite, they didn't want to make it resemble a collapse too much),

You're saying that it didn't resemble a collapse from explosives at all. Also, you're saying that it can't be done.

monitor several religious extremists and encourage them to strike particular targets on a certain day,

Bin Laden himself was in contact with the US up until the events. Immediately afterward he released a statement saying that he had nothing to do with it. The first tape of him taking credit was found in Afghanistan after the invasion. After he had disappeared.

fire a missile at the pentagon,

Show us the plane? Pilots for 911 truth say that it wasn't a passenger jet. Also, I have yet to be convinced that a passenger jet can vaporize. And if it can vaporize, then how did they identify all the bodies? That last question is more directed at Shanksville BTW.

spirit away the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon somewhere and eliminate those on board without radar picking anything unusual up,

Flight 93's tag was read in Cincinnati after the airport was abandoned because the FBI called in a terrorist threat. That is to say that they said terrorists wanted to land a plane there.

and ensure that not a single person involved in the job would blow said job's cover before or after it occurred?

The only example that I can think of of someone blowing it is the guy who said that the member's of flight 93 called using cell phones. His own wife told him she was on a cell phone. So everyone said, oh, well they called us on cell phones. Then later the FBI said he had no contact with his wife that day. And a few months later Being introduced a new passenger jet outfitted with an experimental cell phone tower so that phones would work in flight. He was a somebody in the government and disliked his wife. I can't remember the name offhand but it was somewhere in that other thread.
That said however, it is a fact that NORAD has/had the ability to enable cell phone calls on the plane via satellite.

Hypocrite much? Your entire fucking argument is conjecture and what ifs! I'm trying to figure out what motives you idiots think the government had for blowing up those buildings.

There is a rule here in OT, if it looks like a duck, it's a duck. If you don't know what you are talking about, then just say, "educate me guys."
You're idea of motives are 1D because you are focused in on what the general public understands happened (like "maybe we invaded for oil"). You need to think much more globally, or 4D if you will (like "maybe the destabilization that we caused in the middle east will loosen the control of conservative governments in the region that hate us"). Or, you can ignore global politics, and just say that some people would think this is worth it, because they make money from invasions and war.
But none of that is even important. Don't worry about what-ifs. Worry about what happened.

In addition to Frigidus's reply, why would the government even want to collapse the towers if they weren't going to fall? If they didn't fall, the casualties and the sheer shock of such an attack were still sufficient for the US to go to war with whoever after that...

Ok, stop thinking that the government was behind it. Ignore Bush. Ignore our legislative bodies. No doubt that someone had to know, that's right. But it wasn't the government. Think about how much pressure this put on them. The government would be a tool (best manipulated) but the government wouldn't just haul off and do this all willy-nilly.
I mean, besides this, It's common knowledge that 9-11 (the exact day) was known about before it happened outside of Al-Qaeda.

But to answer your question, liken the towers to a land mine. It's all about symbolism. Knocking the towers down completely is much more of a symbolic gesture than just putting holes in them. The outcry from the public would be much greater, especially with the American death count. However, why knock down all three? I wouldn't know. Tower 7 had some important tax info in it, but oreo man.

The radar did pick up something unusual. The plane was flying west, disappeared from the radar, then reappeared heading east toward the pentagon.

Thank you. I've never seen anything about where the jets were that were sent out either. We know that two were close to flight 93, and witnesses put them closer than the Commission report did. But I would be interested in that if anyone has it.

And there would be no way to cover their asses if that happened. We're talking about the destruction of a skyscraper. If it just spontaneously collapsed people wouldn't buy that these were run of the mill terrorists.

Then use your imagination you dummy. Try replacing the painters with Israeli nationals who get hired as the painters. You do have the infinite power of your imagination here.

Besides, paintable thermite alone wouldn't explain how they managed to destroy the building in such a way that it looked like it collapsed under strain.

They didn't. And no one has proved that either. Not even close.

They would have had to spent a lot of time setting things up, and with a demolition on such a huge scale using volatile substances something could easily have gone wrong and made it clear that there were explosives.

I already quoted the leading European expert who said that he believes it was a controlled demolition.

[BigBallinStalin]

Which reminds me. The Joint Chiefs of Staff around the early 1950s did hammer out that plan of Operation Northwoods, but it was never carried out.

If there was a kind of inside job that Juan and Jay are talking about,

Well I'm glad that fucking reminded you because I only mentioned it twice earlier in your fucking thread, and you quoted Jay and I as putting forth this idea of a massive inside job in the same post. Am I invisible? Neoteny didn't bring this up or remind you, I DID.

Ease up there, Juan. I've known about that for 3 years; it's not that big of a secret. And to use Operation Northwoods in comparison to this event doesn't lend much creedence at all that 9/11 was an inside job. Operation Northwoods shows us that the JCS had the balls to write up a plan in such an environment of the early 1950s, but it was never carried out. The outbreak of war in Korea gave them a war to deal with, but the plan was never revisited. It would've been much easier to pull off back in the day and wasn't nearly as complicated as what the 9/11 truther's say about the 9/11 inside job. Using it to compare it today has very little bearing on your group's allegations.

The inside-job-believers would have more creedence in their hunches had they just said, "The government KNEW about the 9/11 plan and allowed it to happen on purpose."

That and if such an attack were to be carried out, how many years could such a horrendous crime be kept secret?

Since we don't know jack shit about what US operatives do, or our involvement with other intelligence agencies/foreign nationals, then to your question I would have to say FOREVER ON ANYTHING THEY HAVE EVER DONE.
You guys are all getting hung up on "how could it be kept a secret" instead of "how did they prove that heat at a temp of 2000 degrees below the melting point of structural steel for 12 seconds destroy all three towers?"

Thermite paint melting steel at 12 seconds all at the same time to collapse the building perfectly seems a bit unreal. (not to mention pimpdave or Neotony's (or someone's post) about thermite paint being ignited by some worker's ciggarette ash or what have you. How did they overcome that problem while in the process of applying thermite paint to the towers?

Also, the easier way to beat down the insider job for 9/11's allegations is to ask questions like: "how could it be kept a secret?" Because your thermite issue has already been dealt with in pimpdave's reply and by many others...

If there was a kind of inside job that Juan and Jay are talking about, there would be many many people involved in such an operation. How many of those operatives would stay secret about such a horrendous crime?

No, and why do you even think that. How many men do we put in our SEAL combat teams?
AND AGAIN, though I am sure that you will be reminded by someone else's post later, our government is full of secrets involving millions of people. LBJ said he wanted to pull out of Vietnam but his friends wouldn't let him. Same exact goddamn difference isn't it? Thousands of Americans dead so a few select people outside of office could profit.
Any secret operation could be pulled off by anyone. It's a damn secret isn't it. Who said it had to be American's planting bombs? Who said it had to be an actual recognizable bomb? You have the infinite power of your imagination here and yet NONE OF YOU can picture a scenario that even works? It's clear that you've already got your answers, you just want someone else to tell you how you reached your conclusion. And I am here to say that you'll just have to guess, because that is what NIST did too.

This operation that the 9/11 truther's talk about is freakin huge. Imagine the manpower required to pull this off, and imagine how many operatives, army personnel, and higher-ups would be involved, and WOULD know what's going on... Such an operation wouldn't be in the hands of a very minute few.

The size of a SEAL combat team compared to the immense amount of personnel required in this alleged inside job is irrevelant.

LBJ said he wanted to pull out of Vietnam but his friends wouldn't let him. Same exact goddamn difference isn't it?

No, not at all. You're talking about the president and a group of his advisors/friends/whoever. What's that? 5 people? 10 people? And they're just talking about something; whereas, a 9/11 inside job would require many more people and more action than just behind-the-scenes talking.

Any secret operation could be pulled off by anyone. It's a damn secret isn't it. Who said it had to be American's planting bombs? Who said it had to be an actual recognizable bomb? You have the infinite power of your imagination here and yet NONE OF YOU can picture a scenario that even works?

Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? It was a SECRET operation, a SECRET plan, but hey it's out here, isn't it? And no, any secret operation can't be pulled off by anyone.

Somone else and not Americans planting bombs? An actual recognizable bomb? Are you mad? What burns metal or blows up things has certain chemicals and after-effects that can be recognized during the fall of a building and afterwards. And you're suggesting someone else other than Americans planted bombs? What's the point of risking such a hugely secret operation by allowing another countries' agents to do our work? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure, some agents of ours have done some terrible things, but this would be the most horrendous and hardest for one to keep secret to one's self

For who? You are attempting to say that all people think like you do.

They're human, Juan, I'm going on that assumption. Unless robots did it... Many of them that would have to be involved in sucha plan aren't top-notch agents either. Just the guy pushing the button the missle to hit the Pentagon, and yada yada (already mentioned how many would be involved)

It wouldn't take hundreds to rig two skyscrapers top to bottom with explosives, set to go off in a manner that would mimic a collapse (but not quite, they didn't want to make it resemble a collapse too much),

You're saying that it didn't resemble a collapse from explosives at all. Also, you're saying that it can't be done.

fire a missile at the pentagon,

Show us the plane? Pilots for 911 truth say that it wasn't a passenger jet. Also, I have yet to be convinced that a passenger jet can vaporize. And if it can vaporize, then how did they identify all the bodies? That last question is more directed at Shanksville BTW.

spirit away the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon somewhere and eliminate those on board without radar picking anything unusual up,

Flight 93's tag was read in Cincinnati after the airport was abandoned because the FBI called in a terrorist threat. That is to say that they said terrorists wanted to land a plane there.

and ensure that not a single person involved in the job would blow said job's cover before or after it occurred?

The only example that I can think of of someone blowing it is the guy who said that the member's of flight 93 called using cell phones. His own wife told him she was on a cell phone. So everyone said, oh, well they called us on cell phones. Then later the FBI said he had no contact with his wife that day. And a few months later Being introduced a new passenger jet outfitted with an experimental cell phone tower so that phones would work in flight. He was a somebody in the government and disliked his wife. I can't remember the name offhand but it was somewhere in that other thread.
That said however, it is a fact that NORAD has/had the ability to enable cell phone calls on the plane via satellite.

Oy, you need to watch pimpdave's posted video. They handle that extremely well. (Planes occasionally to vaporize upon crashing, it has happened before.)

Also, nearly everything that you regurgitated from that 9/11 video is also covered by pimpdave's post, so check it out if you really want to legitimately uncover some truth.

In addition to Frigidus's reply, why would the government even want to collapse the towers if they weren't going to fall? If they didn't fall, the casualties and the sheer shock of such an attack were still sufficient for the US to go to war with whoever after that...

Ok, stop thinking that the government was behind it. Ignore Bush. Ignore our legislative bodies. No doubt that someone had to know, that's right. But it wasn't the government. Think about how much pressure this put on them. The government would be a tool (best manipulated) but the government wouldn't just haul off and do this all willy-nilly.
I mean, besides this, It's common knowledge that 9-11 (the exact day) was known about before it happened outside of Al-Qaeda.

Oh, so if the government wasn't behind this, then how did such a vast operation get handled? And who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government? (By government, you're assuming its resources as well). Unless of course you say "Al-Qaeda trained terrorists" then you may have a good point.

And no, the date of 9-11 wasn't common knowledge; otherwise, the IC (intelligence community) would've been jumping around in deep shit trying to stop the problem. If it was common knowledge, then this whole inside job would've been even more difficult to pull off since the entire IC would be trying everything to foil it.

But to answer your question, liken the towers to a land mine. It's all about symbolism. Knocking the towers down completely is much more of a symbolic gesture than just putting holes in them. The outcry from the public would be much greater, especially with the American death count. However, why knock down all three? I wouldn't know. Tower 7 had some important tax info in it, but oreo man.

My god, Tower 7 was authorized to be destroyed. It's information was taken out ahead of time, and tax info? What significant bearing of tax info can hold on such an inside job? You are aware of computers and copies are you? Yeah, I like oreos too.

No, Juan, if the planes hit the towers and killed 2000+ people but the towers didn't fall, the government would have enough support to go to war with whoever. Therefore, there's no reason for the government to become involved in such a risky operation that would be completely unnecessary.

[/quote]

Most of your allegations are based on eye witness accounts and possible 2nd-hand witnesses and very little expert analysis (if any at all), while ignoring other witnesses, expert analysis, and what not.

You've picked and chosen what you wish to believe while ignoring other facts that contradict your opinions.

Watch pimpdave's video. It'll do you some good.

The inside-job-believers would have more creedence in their hunches had they just said, "The government KNEW about the 9/11 plan and allowed it to happen on purpose." Instead, you've gone off with overly complicated plans on destroying the Twin Towers, and then also bring in external factors that play with the US government (robots or aliens is my pick).

Such an operation as you allege would require a good amount of time to plan. It would require so many things to go right, so that if there was the slightest mistake or problem, then THE TRUTH WOULD BE OUT. WHy would the government take such risks?

[Juan_Bottom]

The inside-job-believers would have more creedence in their hunches had they just said, "The government KNEW about the 9/11 plan and allowed it to happen on purpose."

Ok, then say that.

How did they overcome that problem while in the process of applying thermite paint to the towers?

I answered that.

This operation that the 9/11 truther's talk about is freakin huge. Imagine the manpower required to pull this off, and imagine how many operatives, army personnel, and higher-ups would be involved, and WOULD know what's going on... Such an operation wouldn't be in the hands of a very minute few.

No it wouldn't. I will use my imagination as to how a military industrial complex with infinite resources would do it. Three guys decide they would make a shitload of money from such an action. So they put a Military officer in charge of rounding up a crew. He hires two teams. One for the towers, and one for the planes. 10 guys in each and 2 in command of each. One to handle the military and one the logistics. There I just came up with a scenario that involved 28 people. Of course judging by the put options against Boeing on 9-11 I would guess that hundred of thousands of people knew ahead of time.

No, not at all. You're talking about the president and a group of his advisors/friends/whoever. What's that? 5 people? 10 people? And they're just talking about something; whereas, a 9/11 inside job would require many more people and more action than just behind-the-scenes talking.

Actually, no. He was talking about the military industrial complex. Or at least that is what it is believed to mean.

Somone else and not Americans planting bombs? An actual recognizable bomb? Are you mad? What burns metal or blows up things has certain chemicals and after-effects that can be recognized during the fall of a building and afterwards. And you're suggesting someone else other than Americans planted bombs? What's the point of risking such a hugely secret operation by allowing another countries' agents to do our work? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

You're an idiot. None of you are even familiar with this are you? 8 out of 10 "troothers" believe that Israeli nationals were the ones who planted bombs. They were on scene jumping on a van and immediately deported. This is not a hidden fact. If you were actually familiar with this instead of bombarding yourself with NIST information you would already know that and wouldn't be surprised to see it being alluded to. Almost all of them say this.
Furthermore chemical signatures from thermite were found on the steel from the towers. Burn marks too. That is why they say thermite and not TNT for example. While this again is common knowledge for a troother, NIST never found any evidence of bombs. I think though that this had something to do that they never really investigated the steel, or the collapse.

Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? It was a SECRET operation, a SECRET plan, but hey it's out here, isn't it? And no, any secret operation can't be pulled off by anyone.

Are you even aware of how it "got out there." No one came forward, it was simply declassified.

Oy, you need to watch pimpdave's posted video. They handle that extremely well. (Planes occasionally to vaporize upon crashing, it has happened before.)

God damnitt. That video is actually on the loose change forums, and is a pile of crap. The author used personal attacks in a way that makes me believe that he missed the point continuously. Furthermore loose Change was released in the aftermath of 9-11 by three college kids. How much do you expect people to talk about this subject then? Congress sure as hell didn't talk about it, save "Invade invade." I saw that video a while back, and so I just watched the first few moments of it to make sure it was one of the same ones I had already scene. If you go forward into it the author even quotes some of the stuff that NIST made up to make their scenario work.
Come to think of it though, even the old loose change video is a bit of a joke among the troothers.
And no, back on topic, planes do not just vaporize. The only examples that I have scene are small fighter jets that are run on tracks, or in experiments with predetermined everything. With the pentagon however, the scenario was different. Similar, but still different. And with Shanksville, the plan hit a field.

What significant bearing of tax info can hold on such an inside job? You are aware of computers and copies are you? Yeah, I like oreos too.

All the investigative info from the Enron case. I'm sure there were other things.

No, Juan, if the planes hit the towers and killed 2000+ people but the towers didn't fall, the government would have enough support to go to war with whoever. Therefore, there's no reason for the government to become involved in such a risky operation that would be completely unnecessary.

How many people actually died from the impacts? VS how many died from the collapse.
Also, you asked for an assumption you twat. You made one, and asked for a counter-scenario.

Most of your allegations are based on eye witness accounts and possible 2nd-hand witnesses and very little expert analysis (if any at all), while ignoring other witnesses, expert analysis, and what not.

You've picked and chosen what you wish to believe while ignoring other facts that contradict your opinions.

Actually no that's not what happened. What you wanted was someone to argue old school loose change type troother stuff, so that's what I have been drug into. HOWEVER, that is not my argument at all. I'm sure it makes you feel all high and mighty, but still my opinion was ignored until I spoke like that. We're talking something more like:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=71907&hilit=911+World+Trade+Center+WTC+7&start=15

You know, I don't even like the loose change site or community. They kicked me out of there, which I have mentioned here before.

a. The 47 massive steel core columns of each of the towers were adequately designed to withstand collapse.4. Structural steel begins to melt at 1510 degrees Celsius (2750 degrees Fahrenheit) and only if that temperature is maintained over a long period of time. Burning jet fuel can only reach temperatures of 1120 degrees Celsius and decreases in temperature if the fuel feeding it is being depleted (as was the case in the Twin Towers). Therefore, the temperature from the burning jet fuel (commonly cited as the reason for weakening the structure) could not possibly have melted the steel-reinforced columns.
The point becomes moot very quickly anyway because, as FEMA acknowledged, the level of dissipation of the jet fuel precluded its ability to burn long enough to even threaten structured steel

The actual temperatures of the WTC fires were only 650 degrees Celsius (1200 degrees Fahrenheit) which is dramatically insufficient to melt steel. Thermite (the incendiary explosive of which there was evidence at Ground Zero), however, typically reaches 2500 degrees Celsius (4500 degrees Fahrenheit).

The WTC has a safety ratio somewhere in the ballpark of 200:1. Even if it lost half its strength, it still has a 100:1 safety ratio BEFORE the steel is actually loaded to its max capacity.

The company who built the WTC even said that if the building collapsed from a hydrocarbon fire, I quote, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner [Boeing 707-DC 8] traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.“
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the jet fuel would dump into the building. (But) the building structure would still be there.”

Each tower contained:
• Over 90,000 tons of concrete;
• 47 Massive Steel Core Columns and
• 240 Steel Perimeter Columns welded together and connected by hundreds of steel joints, perpendicular cross trusses, thousands of large steel bolts and concrete-filled steel floor decking at each floor level;
• 100,000 Ton Heat Sink to absorb excess heat;
• Updated fireproofing and a fire control system designed to prevent “chimney effect” and suffocate fires by depriving them of oxygen.

• Examination of the forensic metallurgy of WTC steel “reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’”

c. Use of the extremely hot-burning explosive incendiary Thermate also leaves a “heat signature.” The inability to reduce the temperature of the debris was the result of thermate use and could not have been from fire, which would have quickly cooled. The debris at Ground Zero literally kept burning for weeks, defying extensive attempts to cool its heat. Thermate burns so hot that it will cut and melt steel beams—fire is incapable of doing so. This was evidenced by:

Orange-to-red-hot pieces of molten metal were visible in the debris.

Infrared satellite photos taken weeks after the collapses still reveal hotspots in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Six weeks after collapse, Ground Zero debris was still hot enough to literally melt the boots of workers after short exposure to its heat. (Note: From video clip with Silverstein and DeMartini; cite below)

d. The sulfidation of the steel at Ground Zero is another characteristic that is concomitant with the use of thermate.

e. Evidence of molten metal; flowing and in pools

f. Observed Temperatures of approximately 1000ºC

Such an operation as you allege would require a good amount of time to plan. It would require so many things to go right, so that if there was the slightest mistake or problem, then THE TRUTH WOULD BE OUT. WHy would the government take such risks?

I haven't made any suppositions about time, size of force, or too much of anything. So let's not make it look like I think any of that.

[BigBallinStalin]

This operation that the 9/11 truther's talk about is freakin huge. Imagine the manpower required to pull this off, and imagine how many operatives, army personnel, and higher-ups would be involved, and WOULD know what's going on... Such an operation wouldn't be in the hands of a very minute few.

No it wouldn't. I will use my imagination as to how a military industrial complex with infinite resources would do it. Three guys decide they would make a shitload of money from such an action. So they put a Military officer in charge of rounding up a crew. He hires two teams. One for the towers, and one for the planes. 10 guys in each and 2 in command of each. One to handle the military and one the logistics. There I just came up with a scenario that involved 28 people. Of course judging by the put options against Boeing on 9-11 I would guess that hundred of thousands of people knew ahead of time.

Also, you're ignoring what's involved in organizing/allowing those Israeli operatives in and then working with them, you're also ignoring the NSA's, CIA's, FBI's, and etc's alleged compliance with such a conspiracy. Not much internally gets past them, Juan. It would take much more than 28 people to pull this off--this overly and ridicuously complicated inside job.

No, not at all. You're talking about the president and a group of his advisors/friends/whoever. What's that? 5 people? 10 people? And they're just talking about something; whereas, a 9/11 inside job would require many more people and more action than just behind-the-scenes talking.

Actually, no. He was talking about the military industrial complex. Or at least that is what it is believed to mean.

Juan this wasn't a good point because it's not a good comparison, but now you've changed it to "military industrial complex," so please explain how the military industrial complex is involved in the 9/11 inside job.

Somone else and not Americans planting bombs? An actual recognizable bomb? Are you mad? What burns metal or blows up things has certain chemicals and after-effects that can be recognized during the fall of a building and afterwards. And you're suggesting someone else other than Americans planted bombs? What's the point of risking such a hugely secret operation by allowing another countries' agents to do our work? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

You're an idiot. None of you are even familiar with this are you? 8 out of 10 "troothers" believe that Israeli nationals were the ones who planted bombs. They were on scene jumping on a van and immediately deported. This is not a hidden fact. If you were actually familiar with this instead of bombarding yourself with NIST information you would already know that and wouldn't be surprised to see it being alluded to. Almost all of them say this.
Furthermore chemical signatures from thermite were found on the steel from the towers. Burn marks too. That is why they say thermite and not TNT for example. While this again is common knowledge for a troother, NIST never found any evidence of bombs. I think though that this had something to do that they never really investigated the steel, or the collapse.

Oh, ow my feelings. Show me evidence for those Israelis and their alleged bomb planting. And Israeli nationals planted the bombs? You mean the thermite paint, right? If it were bombs, they'd be seen going off as the building fell... And again, why would the USA want Israeli operatives planting bombs in the 9/11 towers when it's much easier and safer for them to do that themselves? And oh my 12 of them? I bet they worked on those bombs for months for such a large building, huh? Amazing they didn't get caught. Oh wait, it was some guys painting thermite, not those Israelis, right? SO what's their part in this even more overly complicated conspiracy? When did they enter the US? Oh oh and also, if a plane loaded with jet fuel hits a thermite painted area, then wouldn't it ignite? That whole coordinated thermite demolition job and planning beforehand would've been a bit more difficult to pull off, wouldn't it? (again, why use such an overcomplicated plan?)


Chemical signatures of thermite huh? You know there was this guy who investigated the Auschwitz camps and tested for cyanide and found none. You know how that works? You mess with the experiment, get an improperly tested result, and then use it for the explicit purposes of maintaining a lie. Show me how they tested for thermite.

Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? It was a SECRET operation, a SECRET plan, but hey it's out here, isn't it? And no, any secret operation can't be pulled off by anyone.

Are you even aware of how it "got out there." No one came forward, it was simply declassified.

"It was simply declassified" Ooooo... spooky stuff. Let me ask you this: are you aware of how it was declassified and published for the public's viewing pleasure? [HINT: Body of Secrets] Many things can be declassified, but they are still hard to pull from the hands of the NSA and other related agencies. This secret wasn't pumped out there for the NSA's amusement; it was forced from their hands legally after much effort.

Oy, you need to watch pimpdave's posted video. They handle that extremely well. (Planes occasionally to vaporize upon crashing, it has happened before.)

God damnitt. That video is actually on the loose change forums, and is a pile of crap. The author used personal attacks in a way that makes me believe that he missed the point continuously. Furthermore loose Change was released in the aftermath of 9-11 by three college kids. How much do you expect people to talk about this subject then? Congress sure as hell didn't talk about it, save "Invade invade." I saw that video a while back, and so I just watched the first few moments of it to make sure it was one of the same ones I had already scene. If you go forward into it the author even quotes some of the stuff that NIST made up to make their scenario work.
Come to think of it though, even the old loose change video is a bit of a joke among the troothers.
And no, back on topic, planes do not just vaporize. The only examples that I have scene are small fighter jets that are run on tracks, or in experiments with predetermined everything. With the pentagon however, the scenario was different. Similar, but still different. And with Shanksville, the plan hit a field.

SO you haven't seen that video then? You got angry because it went counter to your views, then stopped watching. That video shows numerous examples of passanger jets hitting the ground, exploding, and having hardly anything remaining, a vaporized plane. Go watch it.

What significant bearing of tax info can hold on such an inside job? You are aware of computers and copies are you? Yeah, I like oreos too.

All the investigative info from the Enron case. I'm sure there were other things.

Juan, if they wanted to get rid of such info, there's more discrete and easier ways of doing so, that are much more effective. Blowing up a building leaves the good chance of papers flying from it. Loading that paper in trucks, shredding it, dumping it in some water-based solution, then burning it is a much better idea if some agency wanted to keep those supposed secrets from the public.

No, Juan, if the planes hit the towers and killed 2000+ people but the towers didn't fall, the government would have enough support to go to war with whoever. Therefore, there's no reason for the government to become involved in such a risky operation that would be completely unnecessary.

How many people actually died from the impacts? VS how many died from the collapse.
Also, you asked for an assumption you twat. You made one, and asked for a counter-scenario.

oo, ow, saying "twat" hurts me even more--Ok, I'm better, but that was close, you almost got me. To answer your question refer to Titanic's thread earlier (probably a few pages back). He stated or someone concluded for him that about 95% of the casaulties, or deaths, from the 9/11 incident occurred at the area of impact and above.

Even if it isn't 95%--let's say it was 25%--the government still has a legitimate claim in striking Afghanistan to bomb the hell out of the Al-Qaeda bases. Regardless of the number, two planes slamming into a large building each are going to kill enough people for this country to start a war.

I'm posing a good question, so please don't ignore it. It's crucial in defending your idea that this was an inside job. Why would the government use such an overly complicated plan to garner support for a war when they didn't even need to in the first place?

Most of your allegations are based on eye witness accounts and possible 2nd-hand witnesses and very little expert analysis (if any at all), while ignoring other witnesses, expert analysis, and what not.

You've picked and chosen what you wish to believe while ignoring other facts that contradict your opinions.

Actually no that's not what happened. What you wanted was someone to argue old school loose change type troother stuff, so that's what I have been drug into. HOWEVER, that is not my argument at all. I'm sure it makes you feel all high and mighty, but still my opinion was ignored until I spoke like that. We're talking something more like:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=71907&hilit=911+World+Trade+Center+WTC+7&start=15

You know, I don't even like the loose change site or community. They kicked me out of there, which I have mentioned here before.

a. The 47 massive steel core columns of each of the towers were adequately designed to withstand collapse.4. Structural steel begins to melt at 1510 degrees Celsius (2750 degrees Fahrenheit) and only if that temperature is maintained over a long period of time. Burning jet fuel can only reach temperatures of 1120 degrees Celsius and decreases in temperature if the fuel feeding it is being depleted (as was the case in the Twin Towers). Therefore, the temperature from the burning jet fuel (commonly cited as the reason for weakening the structure) could not possibly have melted the steel-reinforced columns.
The point becomes moot very quickly anyway because, as FEMA acknowledged, the level of dissipation of the jet fuel precluded its ability to burn long enough to even threaten structured steel

The actual temperatures of the WTC fires were only 650 degrees Celsius (1200 degrees Fahrenheit) which is dramatically insufficient to melt steel. Thermite (the incendiary explosive of which there was evidence at Ground Zero), however, typically reaches 2500 degrees Celsius (4500 degrees Fahrenheit).

The WTC has a safety ratio somewhere in the ballpark of 200:1. Even if it lost half its strength, it still has a 100:1 safety ratio BEFORE the steel is actually loaded to its max capacity.

The company who built the WTC even said that if the building collapsed from a hydrocarbon fire, I quote, "akjsdlkfjasdlkfjasdkjflasdjfkljasdfjasdkljl."

Cite your source for that company's quote please. That entire quote, because you're implying that's what the company who build the WTC has said before and has found after the collision.

Also, have their claims been proven as correct? Have they been verified?

We're arguing about that loose change video as well as reasons why the government would even do such a thing (which you've been ignoring, so perhaps that why it seems to you that we are "...argue[ing] [over] old school loose change type troother stuff, so that's what I have been drug into.")

Such an operation as you allege would require a good amount of time to plan. It would require so many things to go right, so that if there was the slightest mistake or problem, then THE TRUTH WOULD BE OUT. WHy would the government take such risks?

I haven't made any suppositions about time, size of force, or too much of anything. So let's not make it look like I think any of that.

You haven't, have you? Then why are you going on and on about this inside job? If you really believe what you post, then you have to answer these reasonable questions:

This inside job is unnecessarily complex and completely unnecessary to begin with. Why would the government take such risks?

What's the point of risking such a hugely secret operation by allowing another countries' agents to do our work? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Oh, and please address this (you intentionally left it out):

Ok, stop thinking that the government was behind it. Ignore Bush. Ignore our legislative bodies. No doubt that someone had to know, that's right. But it wasn't the government. Think about how much pressure this put on them. The government would be a tool (best manipulated) but the government wouldn't just haul off and do this all willy-nilly.
I mean, besides this, It's common knowledge that 9-11 (the exact day) was known about before it happened outside of Al-Qaeda.

--- Oh, so if the government wasn't behind this, then how did such a vast operation get handled?
--- And who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government?
(By government, you're assuming its resources as well). Unless of course you say "Al-Qaeda trained terrorists" then you may have a good point.

And no, the date of 9-11 wasn't common knowledge; otherwise, the IC (intelligence community) would've been jumping around in deep shit trying to stop the problem. If it was common knowledge, then this whole inside job would've been even more difficult to pull off since the entire IC would be trying everything to foil it.

Also for your plan to work, the IC would have to be completely in the dark about everything, unless all of the director heads, the deputy directors, and their employees working on this were involved... (which is extremely unlikely since the chance of getting so many on board is extremely slim, the chance for them for maintaining the secret becomes severely lessened, and if such an inside job were occurring then they would be trying to stop it internally as well).

So, another factor your ignoring is the Intelligence Community and the role that they would play in such a conspiracy.

The government is filled with very intelligent planners, and had they known that two planes were going to blow up these buildings, they would've had to plan all these factors like the planes igniting the thermite at the wrong time, and so on and so on. Thus, making the planning extremely difficult due to so many unforeseaable factors. Why would the government go through with such a shaky plan?

[Juan_Bottom]

Also, you're ignoring what's involved in organizing/allowing those Israeli operatives in and then working with them, you're also ignoring the NSA's, CIA's, FBI's, and etc's alleged compliance with such a conspiracy. Not much internally gets past them, Juan. It would take much more than 28 people to pull this off--this overly and ridicuously complicated inside job.

I never said any of them had to be compliant with anything. Ever.
I'm just saying that if you have infinite room with your imagination then you can come up with many scenarios where this would work. And it works just fine in mine. And lots get's past them. We just had another attempted attack over Christmas.

Juan this wasn't a good point because it's not a good comparison, but now you've changed it to "military industrial complex," so please explain how the military industrial complex is involved in the 9/11 inside job.

I didn't change jack shit. I never said in what context the quote came from, you just took it one way. I'm not responsible to make sure that everything is always at a sixth grade reading level.

Oh, ow my feelings. Show me evidence for those Israelis and their alleged bomb planting. And Israeli nationals planted the bombs? You mean the thermite paint, right?

God Damn it. When did I say that Israelis did it? Point it out. You can't even follow the conversation... Jesus I never even said thermite paint, that was Jay. And Jay didn't really say that it was. He said that it could happen.

And again, why would the USA want Israeli operatives planting bombs in the 9/11 towers when it's much easier and safer for them to do that themselves?

Why?

(again, why use such an overcomplicated plan?)

You wouldn't have to write such big overcomplicated paragraphs if you would just follow what I am saying.

Chemical signatures of thermite huh? You know there was this guy who investigated the Auschwitz camps and tested for cyanide and found none. You know how that works? You mess with the experiment, get an improperly tested result, and then use it for the explicit purposes of maintaining a lie. Show me how they tested for thermite.

For all you know I did in that thread. There were over 10,000 chemicals present in the rubble. So you do the math and tell me how hard it would be to find traces of thermite. I could have found traces of Abe Lincoln's beard if I wanted.

This secret wasn't pumped out there for the NSA's amusement; it was forced from their hands legally after much effort.

SO you haven't seen that video then? You got angry because it went counter to your views, then stopped watching. That video shows numerous examples of passanger jets hitting the ground, exploding, and having hardly anything remaining, a vaporized plane. Go watch it.

I never said 9-11 was an inside job you stupid twat. And as I stated, I HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO, it was probably over a year ago. When did I say that it made me angry?
In fact again, that video is on the loose change forums being countered. I would pull it for you, but I am banned from that site. But you should feel free to go there and bait those guys. Copy/paste here for us.

Juan, if they wanted to get rid of such info, there's more discrete and easier ways of doing so, that are much more effective. Blowing up a building leaves the good chance of papers flying from it. Loading that paper in trucks, shredding it, dumping it in some water-based solution, then burning it is a much better idea if some agency wanted to keep those supposed secrets from the public.

Then play the scenario game with your imagination.
You didn't ask what would be more fun for disposing all the evidence for a top secret investigation, you asked if there was anything important in the building. I answered that, and that is all that was.

Even if it isn't 95%--let's say it was 25%--the government still has a legitimate claim in striking Afghanistan to bomb the hell out of the Al-Qaeda bases. Regardless of the number, two planes slamming into a large building each are going to kill enough people for this country to start a war.

Says who? That is more conjecture from your side about what the troothers have to think.

I'm posing a good question, so please don't ignore it. It's crucial in defending your idea that this was an inside job. Why would the government use such an overly complicated plan to garner support for a war when they didn't even need to in the first place?

Why would I continue to answer that question when you never even responded to me the first time? Are you on repeat? Don't make me quote myself. Was this entire thread just about baiting from the beginning?
Now, why would I want to use conjecture and make assumptions? And what am I defending? What I was defending was that NIST lied about their investigation. So please don't ignore my girth. It's crucial in defending what you think I think so you can attack that.

Cite your source for that company's quote please. That entire quote, because you're implying that's what the company who build the WTC has said before and has found after the collision.

That was from the link I have been posting. I believe it came originally from engineers for truth but I dunno. I posted that like over 6 months ago.
Also, that one guy who built the towers died inside them when they collapsed, so I have a feeling that he would have backed up that statement.

And have you ever heard of any towers being re-done after 9-11 to prevent them from collapsing the way that NIST/FEMA say those three towers fell? I haven't even heard of new building designs, though to be fair I haven't followed this in like a year. But my point is that I think this is the unofficial stance of everyone.

Also, have their claims been proven as correct? Have they been verified?

Has your "claim" that everyone involved in US government would have to know about 9-11 and then later would want to talk about it been proven? I'm not making claims. What I said about the towers didn't come from the company, it came in part from Engineers for truth and in part from FEMA/NIST. You don't need me to verify the temperature of an office fire. Or that buildings are made to withstand them. You should already know that stuff from TV news anyway. But it's cool if you want to keep going with this. Because this is the only part that I really know about.

We're arguing about that loose change video as well as reasons why the government would even do such a thing (which you've been ignoring, so perhaps that why it seems to you that we are "...argue[ing] [over] old school loose change type troother stuff, so that's what I have been drug into.")

I've actually been answering most everything, even though you aren't making any arguments except "Pimpdave's video that Jason Burmas answered on his radio program" and "well how do they get thousands of millions of everyone but me in on this and no one tells me?" Seriously this is like all you say.


And actually, for the last goddamn time, no one gives a flying f*ck about your "why this" or "why that," Because I have responded to it (though not entirely in this thread). But! only saying that we are making presumption/assumptions that we can't possibly know about because we do not understand global politics on any scale. And you don't. Stop saying that I haven't responded because I have, I just haven't responded in a way that you like.

You haven't, have you? Then why are you going on and on about this inside job? If you really believe what you post, then you have to answer these reasonable questions:

I never said that. Your "questions" (2) might have been reasonable the first time...

This inside job is unnecessarily complex and completely unnecessary to begin with. Why would the government take such risks?

How do I know such a thing? How do you even know that it would be too complex?

What's the point of risking such a hugely secret operation by allowing another countries' agents to do our work? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

It actually does on multiple levels if you can use your imagination. Don't you have one? I realize that you are on one side of this, but still.
1) they don't care about America
2) they are out of the country, they can train outside the us, they can move back outside once the job is done. Or they can be disposed of and American's won't notice. Later you can say they died in the war as say,... mercs or something.
2) coming from a satellite like Israel they are trained in military exercises and equipment anyway

I mean I'm making this all up, but it makes sense on some level somewhere. If you can't see that you are just stupid.

Oh, and please address this (you intentionally left it out):

--- And who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government?
(By government, you're assuming its resources as well). Unless of course you say "Al-Qaeda trained terrorists" then you may have a good point.

Actually I answered this about a bazillion times. You just aren't smart enough to follow your own thread. You are trying to trap me by making me take a side or put down a concrete point. Something that you can exploit. But there is nothing. Keep asking the same questions like someone with Alzheimer's and I'll keep giving you the same answers. You fail by intentionally not addressing the fact that I am not addressing the question in a way that you like. No matter the version that you submit it.

And no, the date of 9-11 wasn't common knowledge; otherwise, the IC (intelligence community) would've been jumping around in deep shit trying to stop the problem. If it was common knowledge, then this whole inside job would've been even more difficult to pull off since the entire IC would be trying everything to foil it.

Again, that's conjecture. Who's to say they wouldn't let it happen? And who's to say that the western nations would be the ones in the know? There was a quote from Condelezza Rice in which she herself admitted that they had a timeframe for an attack on the US. You also have the put options against the airlines. While I'm sure that random spikes can happen with stocks, the FBI didn't investigate it.

So, another factor your ignoring is the Intelligence Community and the role that they would play in such a conspiracy.

The lights are on, but you're not home. You are literally talking to yourself about what I must think.

The government is filled with very intelligent planners, and had they known that two planes were going to blow up these buildings, they would've had to plan all these factors like the planes igniting the thermite at the wrong time, and so on and so on. Thus, making the planning extremely difficult due to so many unforeseaable factors. Why would the government go through with such a shaky plan?

You've actually asked this question in different forms about a hundred times now. I'm only continuing to quote and respond so that you can't accuse me of ignoring you.

[BigBallinStalin]

I brought up that video that pimpdave mentioned earlier only because your replies directed at Frigidus were already dealt with in that video, but if you don't want to talk about the video, then that's fine.


Right, so you're not of the belief that this was an inside job. After I read your stuff about Israeli operatives planting bombs, and Tower 7 and thermite, "how did they prove that heat at a temp of 2000 degrees below the melting point of structural steel for 12 seconds destroy all three towers?," "Show us the plane? Pilots for 911 truth say that it wasn't a passenger jet. Also, I have yet to be convinced that a passenger jet can vaporize," et cetera I then became under the impression that you were, since your posts so closely mimic what the inside job believers say.

--- And who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government?
(By government, you're assuming its resources as well). Unless of course you say "Al-Qaeda trained terrorists" then you may have a good point.

Actually I answered this about a bazillion times. You just aren't smart enough to follow your own thread. You are trying to trap me by making me take a side or put down a concrete point. Something that you can exploit. But there is nothing. Keep asking the same questions like someone with Alzheimer's and I'll keep giving you the same answers. You fail by intentionally not addressing the fact that I am not addressing the question in a way that you like. No matter the version that you submit it.

Well, let's review here.

In addition to Frigidus's reply, why would the government even want to collapse the towers if they weren't going to fall? If they didn't fall, the casualties and the sheer shock of such an attack were still sufficient for the US to go to war with whoever after that...

Ok, stop thinking that the government was behind it. Ignore Bush. Ignore our legislative bodies. No doubt that someone had to know, that's right. But it wasn't the government. Think about how much pressure this put on them. The government would be a tool (best manipulated) but the government wouldn't just haul off and do this all willy-nilly.
I mean, besides this, It's common knowledge that 9-11 (the exact day) was known about before it happened outside of Al-Qaeda.

Oh, so if the government wasn't behind this, then how did such a vast operation get handled? And who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government? (By government, you're assuming its resources as well). Unless of course you say "Al-Qaeda trained terrorists" then you may have a good point.

Then in your next reply, you leave this out of your post. Then I re-ask it, to which you reply that you already have (see above). I've double-checked the thread, and you haven't answered that question, so answer it please. It's an interesting thing you said, and you could at least throw down a sentence or two.

So, who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government?


______________________________________________________________________

Also, have their claims been proven as correct? Have they been verified?

Has your "claim" that everyone involved in US government would have to know about 9-11 and then later would want to talk about it been proven? I'm not making claims. What I said about the towers didn't come from the company, it came in part from Engineers for truth and in part from FEMA/NIST. You don't need me to verify the temperature of an office fire. Or that buildings are made to withstand them. You should already know that stuff from TV news anyway. But it's cool if you want to keep going with this. Because this is the only part that I really know about.

Hmm? I've never claimed that "...everyone involved ... been proven?" But you're not of the insider job persuasion, so why should I revisit that?

I'm asking whether or not it was verified by others, I haven't said it's YOUR claim, all you need to provide are... sources! So I can read into it because it's very interesting stuff that you spilled out.

This inside job is unnecessarily complex and completely unnecessary to begin with. Why would the government take such risks?

How do I know such a thing? How do you even know that it would be too complex?

It's too complex because it relies on so many variables that are extremely hard to predict and then plan around. As soon as people start throwing on more if's and this and that's for their inside job conspiracy belief, then the inside job belief sounds more and more ridiculous and unreasonable.

A more believable inside job would be the one that's easier to do. For example, knowing about the crucial information of when those terrorists would strike, and then keeping the information hidden from the proper authorities like the FBI. (But, then we enter a whole new field there).

And no, the date of 9-11 wasn't common knowledge; otherwise, the IC (intelligence community) would've been jumping around in deep shit trying to stop the problem. If it was common knowledge, then this whole inside job would've been even more difficult to pull off since the entire IC would be trying everything to foil it.

Again, that's conjecture. Who's to say they wouldn't let it happen? And who's to say that the western nations would be the ones in the know? There was a quote from Condelezza Rice in which she herself admitted that they had a timeframe for an attack on the US. You also have the put options against the airlines. While I'm sure that random spikes can happen with stocks, the FBI didn't investigate it.

Had the FBI been allowed to do its job properly, 2 of those terrorists would have been arrested, and then the whole plot would have been unraveled just in time. This is what I've gathered from my conversation with Mr. Mark Rossini.

But, you did bring up something that I also wonder: "Who's to say they wouldn't let it happen?" I wonder about this because the NSA and the CIA weren't properly questioned and were well-protected from too much scrutiny.

(Mark Rossini was the FBI agent working within the CIA's Alec Station for 9/11. He was forbidden by the FBI from telling what actually happened in the CIA's Alec Station on 9/11, and he was forbidden by the CIA to relay the details of al Mihdhar's U.S. visa to FBI Headquarters before 9/11 happened.)

[Neoteny]

Question: supposing it were an inside job, would the opposite party take advantage of knowledge of any information that would point to that? I imagine that any sort of correspondence linking the previous administration would be destroyed, but with the handing over of the reigns, would it not be likely that reliable information might be passed over?

What you're kind of trying to say is, wouldn't the Dems say "Wait, this looks like a missal, let's impeach all Republicans" right? I wasn't quit sure
Some Politicians have questioned on record. But I think that the bulk of these questions came from Independents. The political landscape that has been created however is one where you can't question it or you get ridiculed. And then worse. Some people have lost their jobs and been blacklisted over this. Hell, I've been asking questions and I have gotten is ignored.
You also have to remember single ambitions. As I pointed out in this thread the CIA had a massive human experimentation (on American citizens) program and nothing has ever been done about it. We only just recently learned that mind control and secretly giving psychotropic drugs were part of the program. We don't know how big it really was, but we know that it happened on a nationwide scale. And you don't see that being politicized either.

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

[jay_a2j]

Question: supposing it were an inside job, would the opposite party take advantage of knowledge of any information that would point to that? I imagine that any sort of correspondence linking the previous administration would be destroyed, but with the handing over of the reigns, would it not be likely that reliable information might be passed over?

What you're kind of trying to say is, wouldn't the Dems say "Wait, this looks like a missal, let's impeach all Republicans" right? I wasn't quit sure
Some Politicians have questioned on record. But I think that the bulk of these questions came from Independents. The political landscape that has been created however is one where you can't question it or you get ridiculed. And then worse. Some people have lost their jobs and been blacklisted over this. Hell, I've been asking questions and I have gotten is ignored.
You also have to remember single ambitions. As I pointed out in this thread the CIA had a massive human experimentation (on American citizens) program and nothing has ever been done about it. We only just recently learned that mind control and secretly giving psychotropic drugs were part of the program. We don't know how big it really was, but we know that it happened on a nationwide scale. And you don't see that being politicized either.

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

Yeah, W. Bush left classified 911 memo's in his oval office desk. Not only that, I believe BOTH parties are "in" on slowly destroying America. It's obvious that neither party is interested in "doing what is best for the country".

[Juan_Bottom]

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

Naw, that doesn't happen. President's have been denied access to information in the past. Don't quote me on this directly but I think it was LBJ who asked what type of plane crashed at Rosewell only to be told it was top secret. That is a funny one to me.

Then in your next reply, you leave this out of your post. Then I re-ask it, to which you reply that you already have (see above). I've double-checked the thread, and you haven't answered that question, so answer it please. It's an interesting thing you said, and you could at least throw down a sentence or two.
So, who could've pulled it off if it wasn't our government?

Either you're not following, or you're taking this out of context. How many times have I said that I am not one to speculate? By saying it's not the government I was saying that it wasn't a huge operation that our whole government took part in. It's not like every agency would have colluded or anything like that. It takes private business just like the "remember the Maine!" incident to push these things along. And really, our government isn't the one who profited the most from the wars. Our elected officials suffered a great deal actually.

Right, so you're not of the belief that this was an inside job. After I read your stuff about Israeli operatives planting bombs, and Tower 7 and thermite,

I never said Israeli operatives planted bombs. I never said thermite bombs were used.

"how did they prove that heat at a temp of 2000 degrees below the melting point of structural steel for 12 seconds destroy all three towers?,

This I did ask.

Hmm? I've never claimed that "...everyone involved ... been proven?" But you're not of the insider job persuasion, so why should I revisit that?

I'm asking whether or not it was verified by others, I haven't said it's YOUR claim, all you need to provide are... sources! So I can read into it because it's very interesting stuff that you spilled out.

I did source it. You quoted me saying where it came from. And it's not my claim, FEMA and NIST both said that the temperature of the fire was too cool to melt or weaken the steel. What you had was an office fire in a place where some of the supports were completely destroyed. This is why they say that the updated fire proofing was dislodged from the steel, and the heat sink was destroyed upon impact. However, they never proved it. That was just a guess. Furthermore even with that, they couldn't make their own models collapse. It bugs the hell out of me that we still have no fool proof explanation as to why our towers fell, but no one cares. There are people working in these same type of towers today. Heck it took NIST what?... like 3 years to even admit that the towers fell at free fall speed?


I also forgot to mention, for anyone why is interested I'll try to find it. On the loose change forums there was a guy who had compiled something called "the 9-11 timeline." It is probably over 1000 pages by now. It definitely leans towards the troother side of things, just because he includes a lot of random stuff that you wouldn't hear about and goes back to like the 50s. Basically it's a collection of links to storys that slipped below the mainstream. A good example of one of them is a collection of interviews with firemen and police officers who were on hand at the pentagon and said that there were men dressed as firemen and police officers who went inside the building and removed documents and evidence. But that they were not firemen or police officers, they were agents. It's at the loose change forums or I can try to find it. It was pretty cool for me to see how all of our failures for over a decade were steadily building towards this event. And how all of our government covered their asses after the fact leading to two wars.

A more believable inside job would be the one that's easier to do. For example, knowing about the crucial information of when those terrorists would strike, and then keeping the information hidden from the proper authorities like the FBI. (But, then we enter a whole new field there).

That I agree with somewhat. But even before 911 I never thought that in Laden had that big of a problem with the US. I mean, a lot can change, but it still surprised me. The part I don't agree with is that there are too many people working together to collect this information. It seems like there are too many checks to hide ground intelligence.

But, you did bring up something that I also wonder: "Who's to say they wouldn't let it happen?" I wonder about this because the NSA and the CIA weren't properly questioned and were well-protected from too much scrutiny.

It wasn't just them either, it seems like everyone was protected. The most common example is Dick Cheny got caught lying by Minota (SP?) and yet Mr. Minota's testimony was still stricken from the commission report in favor of Cheny's. Now they have kinda covered their butts, but I don't think I can ever forget that. Even the Commission report covered for Cheny when he wasn't even involved. There were a lot of irregularities in the report that were just kind of, brushed aside. Now they are just fueling the troother movement.

I believe BOTH parties are "in" on slowly destroying America. It's obvious that neither party is interested in "doing what is best for the country".

I think all American's agree with you Jay. They just don't do anything about it.

[pimpdave]

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

Yeah, W. Bush left classified 911 memo's in his oval office desk. Not only that, I believe BOTH parties are "in" on slowly destroying America. It's obvious that neither party is interested in "doing what is best for the country".

So if it's worth committing the most complex, devastating inside job in history to guarantee a second term in office because war presidents don't get voted out, why wouldn't it be worth it to reveal this plot for what it is to guarantee a second term in office? And if they're both "in on it" why are the Republicans being as petty and pathetic as ever with trying to eliminate as many Democrats as possible?

Jay, you are dumb.

[Frigidus]

Somehow XKCD is always topical.

[MeDeFe]

Somehow XKCD is always topical.

I was just going to post that.

[jay_a2j]

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

Yeah, W. Bush left classified 911 memo's in his oval office desk. Not only that, I believe BOTH parties are "in" on slowly destroying America. It's obvious that neither party is interested in "doing what is best for the country".

So if it's worth committing the most complex, devastating inside job in history to guarantee a second term in office because war presidents don't get voted out, why wouldn't it be worth it to reveal this plot for what it is to guarantee a second term in office? And if they're both "in on it" why are the Republicans being as petty and pathetic as ever with trying to eliminate as many Democrats as possible?

Jay, you are dumb.

It didn't happen "to guarantee a second term". Bush was a puppet. Just like every president who gets "elected" becomes. lol I'm dumb? You are the one who apparently "buys" the apparent animosity between the 2 parties! It's fake. The 2 parties don't hate each other but they will make sure to put on a show so it seems like they do. Wake up.

[Neoteny]

Question: supposing it were an inside job, would the opposite party take advantage of knowledge of any information that would point to that? I imagine that any sort of correspondence linking the previous administration would be destroyed, but with the handing over of the reigns, would it not be likely that reliable information might be passed over?

What you're kind of trying to say is, wouldn't the Dems say "Wait, this looks like a missal, let's impeach all Republicans" right? I wasn't quit sure
Some Politicians have questioned on record. But I think that the bulk of these questions came from Independents. The political landscape that has been created however is one where you can't question it or you get ridiculed. And then worse. Some people have lost their jobs and been blacklisted over this. Hell, I've been asking questions and I have gotten is ignored.
You also have to remember single ambitions. As I pointed out in this thread the CIA had a massive human experimentation (on American citizens) program and nothing has ever been done about it. We only just recently learned that mind control and secretly giving psychotropic drugs were part of the program. We don't know how big it really was, but we know that it happened on a nationwide scale. And you don't see that being politicized either.

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

Yeah, W. Bush left classified 911 memo's in his oval office desk. Not only that, I believe BOTH parties are "in" on slowly destroying America. It's obvious that neither party is interested in "doing what is best for the country".

Please note that I don't consider you sane enough to answer any question in an appropriate manner, so I don't actually hold this against you.

No, I was trying to express that the dems, most notably the prez, would likely become privy to some info that would shine some light on the previous administration's alleged associations with 9/11, despite any attempts to suppress such volatile information.

Naw, that doesn't happen. President's have been denied access to information in the past. Don't quote me on this directly but I think it was LBJ who asked what type of plane crashed at Rosewell only to be told it was top secret. That is a funny one to me.

It's not the confidentiality status that I distrust; it's people's ability to keep a secret. Regardless of the exact number required to pull this off, there will be a group of people in on it, and I just don't see the secret-keeping abilities of people as strong enough to keep something like this confidential.

[Titanic]

Somehow XKCD is always topical.

[Phatscotty]

Evidence relating to the death of Government weapons inspector David Kelly is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.

Remember the UK weapons inspector that said Saddam was 45 minutes from having nukes? The same inspector that committed "suicide" while jogging?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... vidence.do